Posted on 09/17/2006 8:03:05 AM PDT by Principled
Dear Principled,
"What is your explanation as to why after 95 years we haven't had an nrst on top of our income tax?"
Because the genius of the American system is that it does not do easily what it has never been done before. That is to say, in the normal gridlock that the Founders built into our constitutional system, it's difficult to do a new thing.
However, once a thing is done (like imposing an income tax), it's easy to do again.
Thus, once an NRST is in place, it won't be too tough to re-impose an income tax on an "emergency basis" on the "rich only," because, well, it's been done before.
And before long, we'll have the worst of it all.
Thus, it's really necessary, BEFORE we let the genie of a national sales tax out of the bottle, to put a stake through the vampire of the income tax (how's that for a mixed metaphor? ;-) ).
"Once we see what it's like without the income tax, who would ever propose it?"
Folks who want more money for the government to spend. Like most of the folks in Congress. Unfortunately, even with Republican majorities in both houses of Congress, the folks who want to spend more, more, more are in the majority, not the minority.
"Point being that after 95 years there has been sufficient resistance to prevent a sales tax on top."
I think that once Congress passes an NRST, the new thing will have been done - imposing the NRST. That's the hard thing. The easy thing will be to bring back the income tax, especially on an "emergency basis" taxing "only the rich."
"...then by all means tell your rep."
My representative is Ben Cardin of Maryland. The last thing I want to do is give him ideas about another tax that Congress could pass.
sitetest
"I don't know why in the world we should encourage Congress to starting taxing us with a national sales tax before we strip them of the authority to tax our incomes. "
Of course you don't since you're one of those opposing the FairTax; but you're welcome to correct me if I'm mistaken on that point. Wouldn't expect that you WOULD support it.
OTOH you could at least be honest in that there were some very good reasons given in this thread as to why trying such a combined, catch-all amendment as you suggest would be much worse that just a poor idea. It would be working against itself by the very provisions in the bill.
Posts #243, 247, 248, 252, 272, 297 are all replete with "sensible reasons". The fact that you wish to not accept them is solely your problem. Your attempts to brush them away with your "no sensible reason" rhetoric is just that - rhetoric. You've not refuted a single one.
"... BEFORE we let the genie of a national sales tax out of the bottle, to put a stake through the vampire of the income tax ..."
In fact, that's exactly what the FairTax bill does - eliminates the income tax (and others), the corresponding tax code, the IRS (and its funding), and requires the income tax records to be destroyed. That's indeed a stake through the heart of the vampire.
Making some facile claim that it will merely be restarted by a Congressional finger-snap is hardly reasonable since once gone there will be a huge political quagmire to wade through and with enough votes to pass the FairTax there are certainly more than enough to keep the income tax from seeing the light of day during the 7 year repeal period or - quite possibly - even for good.
Once people live under the FairTax system they will rapidly grasp its benefits and refuse as a collective voting body to return to the income tax system. Having had the income tax in the past does not make it easier to restart it ... in fact, if anything it will make it more difficult since more people under the new FairTax system will be aware of more of the deficiencies of the income tax than ever before. There will certainly be no hue and cry to return to it.
So I certainly don't ascribe to your believe that the easiest thing is what's been done before since for that to be true it would have to mean that taxpayers at large like and approve of the income tax system - and nothing could be further from the truth.
The correct repeal track is the one we're presently on - pass the FairTax and then the simplified repeal bill either with or without the "taxing income is illegal" verbiage. That will make it much easier to pass the repeal bill as most people will greatly approve of the FairTax and the manner in which it functions.
Certainly.
They have "studies", you have "studies".
They have "experts", you have "experts".
They have an agenda, you have an agenda.
They are well-funded, you are well-funded.
They believe they can predict everything with perfect accuracy using biased models, ditto for the FairTaxers.
They are doom & gloomers, ya'll are doom & gloomers.
They think everyone who disagrees with their far-out claims is an idiot, so do ya'll.
They are wrong, you are wrong.
It's a perfect analogy.
What you are expressing here is an opinion, not a fact. I believe that you believe that is true, but it is still an opinion. I have an opposite opinion, and that is what they both are-- opinions.
Sorry but that shows no connection at all to the FairTax.
Further, I don't care what the rate is provided it's revenue neutral (or below that - invoking a reduction in spending).
You aren't even able to show the rate isn't revenue neutral. You alternate between the rate being to low and too high. Recently, you've been saying the rate is less than revenue neutral. That represents a spending reduction.
I recall you saying that we should work on spending cuts. Well, there it is!
So the rate being less than revenue neutral isn't your real reason for opposing the nrst, is it? On one hand you say we need to do spending cuts - on the other hand you say you oppose the nrst because it contains (cough...) spending cuts.
Why not tell the forum the real reason(s) you oppose. It sure would be easier for you to defend!
Of course the rate is not the thing set in stone with the FairTax bill, the revenue is. The rate will be set to generate the proper amount of revenue, and this will include the massive prebate entitlement, and the phony FairTaxes being paid by the govt to itself and counted as revenue but not an expense. And if the required amount of taxable consumption doesn't appear, the rate will be raised causing further erosion of the base.
And in the end, we'll have our emergency income tax on the rich on top of the consumption tax. No thanks.
The real difference is that I offer reasons about why I think my opinions would be correct and not just state them as dogma.
You can lead a pigdog to water, but you can't make him drink. You and the global Warming nuts are singing from the same hymnal. Same tactics, same condescension.
Since I give reasons for everything I state, you must be confused.
I've explained exactly why they are wrong numerous times. They don't take into account the government paying the tax to themselves. And they don't take into account any evasion, or even base erosion due to price reductions that you say will happen. Take those into account and you are at the 45-50% exclusive Fair Tax rate.
Why not tell the forum the real reason(s) you oppose.
Because it will not work as promised, and has the potential to wreck our economy, is a good enough reason for me.
No, you've expressed an opinion void of any data. Like I said, simply stating doesn't make it true. Reading Gale isn't helpful ... especially if you don't understand it.
They don't take into account the government paying the tax to themselves.
Yes they do. (See how easy it is to refute opinion?!). Gov't already pays tax. The nrst won't change that.
And they don't take into account any evasion,...
Yes they do. Read it closer. They take the SAME degree of evasion as now into account. You're wrong.
BTW, it is YOU who decided pre-tax prices would fall 9%. Not me. And remember when Jorgenson opined 22-24% of prices were tax costs? Why do you think he organized the tax costs into one place?
Because it will not work as promised,..
Sorry Rob, we're well beyond listening to you with no back up. You have nothing but opinion behind this statement. Just up the thread you gave several reasons NOT to take opinion into account. Don't you read your own posts?
"... massive prebate entitlement ..."
Well, it IS a prebate but nothing else in that description fits. Its not "massive" (in fact far less than the Tax Panel mistakenly claimed) and the amount is encompassed by the 23% revenue neutral rate.
It is also not an "entitlement" but a rebate (and so stated in the bill) and as most people know a rebate is "... a return of a part of a payment ...".
There will also be no "emergency income tax" since voters once they've experienced the freedom of living under the FairTax and the economic benefits of that will certainly not allow their elected representatives to restart (from scratch - having just gotten rid of one) another income tax system.
That's just FUD speak ... fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
No one has ever tried to bring either the House of the Senate version of the FairTax out for markup. At some point when the political climate is right, that will certainly happen.Like when there is a Republican House, a Republican Senate, and a Republican President?
You haven't shown anything wrong about the studies giving a 23% rev neutral rate. Simply stating it isn't sufficient.What about the one the AFT paid for that says it would have to be 27%? This one just came out last December.
I thought they buried that one.
"... you must be confused ..."
Confuzzed??? Not me - but you see you give no reasons in the post I'm replying to ... but merely an attack.
The only thing they fear more is losing their jobs. That is why the number of cosponsors is rising.
It won't matter if we don't see it come up for the next 10 congresses. It will eventually come up. THe supporters aren't going away - they are not going to give up. The number of them continues to grow too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.