Tell that to Vegas. They like it dirty.

I disagree that you need to study this, which is what I've said - we want equal opportunity. We don't have it, but the opportunity is a lot more equal than 70%. What people are seemingly demanding is equal outcome. It's not a "problem" that needs to be corrected that women tend to choose certain jobs and men choose others - there is still significant overlap and we are continuously evolving as a society already. Not everything needs to be scrutinized to every tiny detail. If you're going to focus on something, focus on why women get paid less for like professions with like education and like experience - that's the ONLY "problem" in all of this. Even then, with more women entering college than men, and the gradually changing mores of society, I think it's a gradually self correcting problem.

The problem I have is that, right now, our economy is largely based on debt. That's not a good position to be in, and the recent (and ongoing) crash had a lot to do with people taking on more debt than they could deal with. I wouldn't mind a consumption based economy if people weren't going into debt to do it, and an economy rebuilt that way would be a lot stronger and less subject to crashes. The FairTax does encourage saving - I don't see that as a bad thing. There might be some short term economic problems, but we would emerge a lot stronger in the long run. Too many people are focussed on the short term. I also realize that it seems like the middle class would be the hardest hit, but like you said, they already are, and look at it this way - no more complaints about things like rich people making their money off of capital gains not paying their "Fair Share." No more under-the-table employment.

You're right... they've made the FairTax worse, now. I didn't see the latest submission to congress.... but complaint about the strawman stands, because it was prior to 2013 when I was hearing that nonsense about it. Still, I would suggest that, mortgage interest rates being what they are, they would not be subjected to tax - only the fees involved with the lender would be subject.

Lastly, the problem with your question is that it puts the FairTax in a poor position compared to other suggested (and the existing) forms of taxation, because it was designed to be revenue neutral. Now you're demanding something that the current system doesn't even provide, and then complaining about it. It seems like a way off base reason to campaign against it.

Including Chernobyl, there have been something like 56 direct fatalities, 4000+ deaths from cancer attributed to the radiation, and 350,000+ displaced peoples due to fission reactor failures. I'm not aware of any deaths *directly* attributed to Fukushima but let's round that off to an even 60.

Banqiao hydroelectric dam collapse: 26,000 drowned, 145,000 dead from disease and famine, 11+ million displaced.

Adjusted for GW capacity, hydroelectric power (970GW) is an order of magnitude more dangerous than nuclear (372GW).

Ban hydro power! ;)
=Smidge=

Poor people are better off even if retail prices don't drop (as proponents of the FairTax purport). The math is quite simple... a "prebate" on taxes up to the poverty level (even if you don't make that much money) and NO social security or medicare. People claim it'll hurt the middle class the most, which may be - but the middle class is already the hardest hit, and for those with debt or want to save, the FairTax is the best option available.

I see... still no valid complaint against the FairTax, then.

Only by those who create FairTax strawmen so that they can tear them down (like no tax exemption for mortgage interest). I don't think I've ever seen any valid complaints against the FairTax, so if you think it's been torn apart, then point me to an article tearing it apart that doesn't make lies and/or incorrect assumptions about it. The only people who actually understand the FairTax that still complain about seem to be the type who advocate taxation as a means of control rather than a means of revenue. Ultimately, while admittedly poorly named, and not without flaws, I've never seen a better suggestion.

If I were president, $#% like that wouldn't happen... I'd leave it all completely open - the thought of filtering news and coercing journalists is repulsive to me... But then that's one of the million reasons I'm not president and have never felt like there was a good candidate to vote for.

No, it just causes them to congregate in one place. I guess that's a good thing for people like me who stay away.

But it's simply not $0.70 on the dollar when comparing apples to apples. You cannot complain about wage discrepancies between different professions - it's simply asinine. And why do I "need" to "invite more women in?" If I have jobs, they are welcome to apply... I don't understand why you believe employers "need" to incentivise women... It just seems too many people are after equal outcomes when what we need is equal opportunity - and to a large extent, we are very close to that.

There are differences, of course, but they balance out, I think. First, Comcast needs infrastructure across the whole city in order to deliver it's services, and I think that gives the city even more right to decide wether or not to let them do it. They'd be using city owed property and be given rights of way in order to do their business, whereas Walmart only takes a piece of land - generally already zoned for commercial area - and builds where a commercial enterprise was already desired by the city.

So... on the outside, it seems like Walmart would have a better case for suing. At the same time, the destruction in the wake of the Walmart tornados are terrible... we had a new one open near me and within six months it looked like a dump that had been there for 30 years, not to mention all the nearby stores that were bought out and destroyed to make it possible. Largely, though, it's the clientele. Just look at the "People of Walmart" websites... the store parking lot was trashed, oil stained, garbage all over the place... the shopping carts looked like they were 10 years past their prime when they were only six months old. In six months it went from brand new, including new parking lot and everything, to being a horrible eye-sore.

It's been happening as the whole perception of a woman's role in life, in general, has adapted to modern times. More women entering the work force, more women getting higher educations in fields that pay more - life in general. I'd wager it actually has little to do with anything other than an evolution of beliefs as the older generations retire and the younger (and generally more open minded) people start taking over. In fact, in a fairly direct manner, I'd suggest that income taxes were the biggest catalyst, as now the lesser wage earner in families is often only covering the tax burden of the primary wage earner.

Is it? If you negotiated that with your employer, it's one thing; if it's a government mandate that people be paid for not working, then the idea that the employee is being "cheated" for only getting a week off is absolute bullshit. I'm not arguing employers shouldn't offer it, I'm arguing against the entitlement mentality.

Yes... a difference of over 20% is very misleading. I never argued there still wasn't a discrepancy - in fact, I said it right there in post. The 70 cents on the dollar meme IS bullshit.