Posted on 12/15/2005 10:33:58 AM PST by Eaglewatcher
If I haven't learned to read, why post to me? That's really stoopid.
If you're an idiot, then you're dumb. Can you read that ROTFLAO
..it's more bearable because I now have more money in my pocket than ever before,
You must be posting to the wrong person. I didn't say this. Can you not read?
Just like a liberal college prof. No ideas except your own. Everyone else is stupid. Only you are right. You are superior. Are you a college prof? If not, you sure act like a self-important, myopic liberal.
That aside, we can disagree on whether we think the rate is "marketed properly", or whether eliminating withholding will make us all accept more spending (LOL), but those are small issues compared to border adjustability. I note you failed to rebut those points. (I bet you'll say you don't need to cuz they're dumb). What really makes shalom isreal reject tax reform. Do you have an alternative? Or will you reply with more self-important repetition of your own tiny POV?
Lots of people aren't stupid, even though you appear to be. Let's boil this down and see if you get it:
If the FairTax leaves me with less money in my pocket than today, then I object for that reason.
If the FairTax leaves me with the same amount or more money in my pocket, then I object because it makes immoral government spending less painful to me.
We are in far, far more danger now of having both taxes than we will be after passage of HR 25.
Today, we enjoy zero protection against having both taxes. Hell they're already after internet sales. All it would take is a single vote in Congress to impose a sales tax on top of our income/payroll tax nightmare.
However, the nrst imposes a number of formidable obstacles. For instance, the entire income tax code is erased. How long would it take to rewite and renegotiate another income tax code? With all the lobbying it would be years. Second, all existing income tax records are destroyed, save those delinquent at changeover. It would be a difficult task to make folks return all of their personal info to the feds - businesses too. Third, withholding would have ended. How duumb would it be to for a pol to propose or vote for reinstituting withholding after we've had a taste of having our own money first?
So yes, it would be possible - but it is much more likely to happen now under our income/payroll tax sheme. The nrst reduces that possibility by eliminating the income tax code, destroying income tax records, and abolishing withholding of taxes. If avoiding having both taxes is your concern, then it seems you would be for the nrst. Go to thomas.loc.gov and search HR 25.
It will make ALL government spending more painful if you have to pay in cash.
Did you get that the third time I asked?
So are you a college prof? Are you the stereotype know-it-all, everyone-else-is-stupid prof? !
You can't be that dense, so I tentatively dub thee "troll".
Look, if under the FairTax I have more money to spend than before, then I'm happier than before. The NEA might still bother me, but it will bother me less than before, because I now have more disposable cash to drown my sorrows in iPods, or whatever I like. Last year there was an NEA, and I was unable to guy a new Mac; next year there's still an NEA, but I can buy a new Mac. Under which circumstance will I be more unhappy about the NEA?
As I say, you can't be that dense.
I think that you've said several times now that NO MATTER WHAT, you're opposed to the FairTax. Why go through all the convolutions of trying to pretend otherwise??
Opposed is opposed. That's certainly clear. No matter what it might do, you're opposed to the FairTax.
Enen if it does greatly help this country economically - YOU'RE OPPOSED!! That's certainly wise. Just be again' everything for no rational reason. You've offered none so far. Nor have you offered any alternative (except to just be OPPOSED).
Pretend otherwise? Pretend otherwise? What does it take to make it clear that I oppose it no matter what? A boot to the head?
That's "agin'", not "again'".
You've offered none so far.
I've stated it with utter clarity. If the FairTax costs me more, then I object for that reason. If it costs me less, then I object because it makes oppressive government spending more tolerable.
People should be reforming government spending, not taxation. Stop the gubmint from doing the myriad of things it shouldn't be, and I won't care what kind of tax system is used; the teensy weensy federal budget will not be a concern anyway.
"I guess it's not fair to say I'm absolutely opposed to the FairTax"
Well, no it certainly IS fair to say you're absolutely opposed to the FairTax since your own words say that. And then, OTOH, you try to pose as though you're some sort of disinterested observer sitting by idly advising your math students and telling them the correct way to calculate things.
And then when you tire of THAT little word game you try the ploy of being opposed for other reasons (such as not repealing the 16th amendment or not cutting spending) while trying to hold out the expectation that you have some rational reasons for opposition which you state and then are refuted on - so, of course, you then try some other angles.
We've seen your sort on these threads before - and you, like those others, no doubt have no better alternative of a tax plan to offer ... you're merely agin' the FairTax no matter what. And, no, that's not "again" which is quite a different word.
And so, you merely join the ranks of the Status Quo Lovers making you decidedly in the minority. You're in the well-deserved company of that crew.
Just out of curiosity, what is it that makes you so like the present tax system that you defend it by attacking a clearly better one? Or is it perhaps that you are merely superior (with your self-perceived intellect) to all of the economists who believe the FairTax to be of great economic benefit to both the taxpayers and the country and therefore favor it?
No it's not. You're just not sufficiently intelligent to understand this (among other things).
Because I'm sure you won't be able to figure it out on your own, here it is.
Today, all prices include a component that represents taxes and tax costs. One of the reasons pelple don't know this is because it's hidden in the price.
The nrst removes hidden taxes and tax costs coming to appx 22% of today's price (that's an inclusive rate). Then the nrst is added to the new price and we're back to about where prices are today.
Dolt.
Where are you getting this? You're not reading it fully I think. You will have more money pre-tax. You'll simply pay your taxes later, after you have your money in hand. If you choose to save or invest, you will defer taxes.
You still have to pay taxes under the nrst, just at a different time.
And yeah, you won't mind pulling extra cash out of your pocket to fund the NEA - cuz according to yo you'll have more to "give" to your liberal causes. Youzfel iddyott.
Isn't it predictable how the liberal mindset is one that supposes that complaining about something is sufficent to remove it from consideration? No alternatives from liberals, just whining. Typical of the liberal who surprisingly said it was a bad thing not to have been in the real world - and he's in academia!! LOL What a myopic lib.
Yeah, we've tried that for 80 some years, and no progress at all. Oh wait, that's what you want! No progress on spending reform - that's why you oppose tax reform.
For the thrid or fourth time, what proposal is better?
Crickets chirping.... sagebrush rolling...
The nrst is the best alternative. You hav been asked multiple times for an alternative. That's because your alternative is to keep the marxist income tax.
Are you really going to tell this forum that eliminating withholding and making all folks pay the same rate in cash will not affect spending?!
LOL. Talk about no real world understanding!
"I used to be a republican, but....." /tripe off.
For the umpteenth time, the best system is the one that eliminates the injustice of government redistribution and unconstitutional spending. The second-best is the one that causes maximum pain, so that eventually the oppressed peasants will actually do something about it.
Since you take it as given that the assault will continue, I would prefer to see it as painful as possible. Ideally, plagues-of-egypt bad. Death of the firstborns and all. Whatever it takes to wake up 250 million sheep, and make them refuse to be sheared any longer.
Liberal? It is to laugh. If you wish to pigeonhole me, shoot more in the direction of christian libertarian. In this case, I object to theft, and your coming up with a different means of carrying out the theft doesn't move me in the slightest. I don't like being robbed. I do not like it in a house; I do not like it with a mouse. I do not like it here or there; I do not like it anywhere.
That's so hard to understand? Why?
If every citizen ends up paying exactly the same amount in taxes, then changing the system is pointless. But of course that isn't the outcome; FairTaxers simply make that dishonest claim. The reality is that some will pay less, and some will pay more, than they do now.
Well, no it certainly IS fair to say you're absolutely opposed to the FairTax since your own words say that.
Finish the sentence, Mr. Illiterate. I said I'm not aboslutely opposed, I'm only opposed if it makes me pay less, or if it doesn't. That's called a tautology, since I must either pay less or not pay less. Thus I explicitly said I am opposed unconditionally. Humorously, I said that I wasn't absolutely opposed, but clarified that what I am is absolutely opposed.
It's no surprise that went over your head. But at some point you should realize that you're just too dazed to keep up, and drop out.
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.