Posted on 09/03/2006 5:18:40 AM PDT by Man50D
Abolish the federal income tax!
No more taxes on savings and investments!
A "Fair Tax" can completely fund the federal government, Social Security and Medicare!
You control how much you spend!
So what are we waiting for?
You, the taxpayers of America burdened with an income tax that is costly, wasteful and sinking America into inevitable bankruptcy. All current forms of federal taxation would end! You would keep 100 percent of your paycheck. You control how you spend your paycheck. It's your money. You make the decisions as to how you want to spend your money.
The Fair Tax would create more jobs and give the USA a level playing field when selling overseas. United States Senator John Linder (R-Georgia) is sponsoring the "Fair Tax Act of 2005." If enacted by Congress, it would accomplish all of the above. Simple. Easy. And affordable.
It's the best way to downsize government without disrupting the economy.
To join the "Fair Tax" movement in America, just sign the "Economic Freedom & Fairness" Petition supporting forward-thinking solutions. Go to www.grassfire.net and liberate the working class of taxpayers. Grassfire is trying to give the working class the same kind of freedom America's founders gave to those who joined the American Revolution in 1776 with the "Declaration of Independence." We won the Revolutionary War, but have lost our country since the 16th Amendment (income tax) became "Law" in 1913.
(Excerpt) Read more at bayshorenews.com ...
Administered by who?
I said ONE TAX system.
If a sales tax is the best and only way to get there, then so be it.
By cooperation.
You called the fairtax the 'model' for Florida and Texas. The prebate has always been a part of the fairtax or NRST. It is a difference and you refute does not change that. The prebate is not used in those states.
2) "There is no tax on services like the fairtax." ... Irrelevant whether they tax this or not. The essential point is that they do NOT take income tax out of your paycheck. In other words, the method by which the state collects taxes is consistent with the FT model. Whether the state taxes services is entirely up to them.
Florida did in fact try to tax services and dropped it the first year because of serious compliance issues. Again the fairtax is not the model for Florida and Texas. This is a major difference and you don't refute it.
3) "They certainly don't add a 30% tax like the fairtax." ... The FT does not ADD 30% tax to anything. Its clear that you do NOT understand the FT.
Yes, the fairtax does add 30% to the cost. That is how it works. The thing you don't understand about embedded costs is those cost are going to go into the workers pockets in the form of larger paychecks, therefore the cost of items will not go down all that much. Just ask the NRST Dr. Jorgenson about that one.
4) "They don't tax the sale of new homes like the fairtax." The FT has no provision to 'tax the sale of new homes'. It will replace the tax you ALREADY PAY when you buy a new home. The taxes YOU ALREADY are a conglomeration of many different taxes paid by everyone involved in the construction of the home. THEY paid the state tax and passed that cost onto you when you bought the home.
Again, most of the embedded taxes will go into the workers paycheck. Prices will not come down that much, but the final price will rise once you add your 30% tax on it.
These differences are almost entirely irrelevant.
You left off #5 that the fairtax taxes government expenditures whereas Florida and Texas do not. All my difference were significant difference. You are the one arguing that the fairtax is the model used by these states. Yes they are both sales taxes, but there are very SERIOUS differences, which you have not refuted at all.
Now, have you read the Fair Tax book or not?
I have written and know more about the fairtax than Boortz has. I have debated this long before Boortz even know what it was. I know all the pros and cons and Boortz book added nothing to the debate. Its all been on AFFT's website for years and posted on this forum hundreds of times.
Fair Tax Fairy tale.
Oh horsecrackers!
Who administers the income tax?
You registered Roscoe and the screen name is still there. Anybody can see that. You have two screen names -- Roscoe and Mojave. You're in violation of our agreement. Honor your side of the agreement and never again post to FreeRepublic under any screen name.
The city of Palm Beach in Florida in cooperation with the county of Contra Costa in California, in your fairy tale.
Who administers your property tax?
Not the city of Palm Beach in Florida in cooperation with the county of Contra Costa in California.
Today, someone earning 26400 gets income taxed and payroll taxed. His purchasing power is below 26400 but you still say he gets 26400 in goods. OK. Well then why does someone who pays their taxes later not get the same? You are playing games trying to omit the reduction in buying power that the income tax causes. Why do you recognize the reduction caused by the nrst but not the reduction caused by the income tax system?What I'm talking about has absolutely nothing to do with the current system. Why are you even bring it up? The FairTax people say that the FCA allows people to be untaxed on their necessities. This is another FairTax lie. A person is unable to purchase the poverty level of goods without paying FairTax
I assume from your non-answers that you really don't think this is the best flippin' tax system ever devised by the mind of Minolta.
Just have the federal, state and local governments "cooperate" it into existence.
Maybe restaurants could sell their leftovers as untaxed used food.
You can run through every single one of my posts, and you can not find me supporting the so-called Fair Tax. It might be the best alternative. I don't know.
I want to pay once and be done with all these layers of government with their millions of schemes designed to get cash out of ME.
Let someone else do the paperwork, bookkeeping, long hours, and headaches.
Hey, why bother with legislation to create the "One Tax"?
Just have the federal, state and local governments "cooperate" it into existence.
BWAHAHAHAHA~!!!
OK, so how does that square with:
The FT has no provision to 'tax the sale of new homes'. It will replace the tax you ALREADY PAY when you buy a new home. The taxes YOU ALREADY are a conglomeration of many different taxes paid by everyone involved in the construction of the home. THEY paid the state tax and passed that cost onto you when you bought the home.
And what point did you prove? You proved that I challenge some of these soi disant "experts" as to their true motives.
Why should anyone on this board take you seriously when you actually DEFEND the IRS? I challenge any of your fellow SQL's to defend it. I haven't seen it. Maybe I haven't archived as many posts as you.
Here is the bottom line SQL. No one likes the current income tax system, no one likes the IRS gestapo (who testified before congress in masks), no one likes the audits, no one likes the millions of lines of code, no one likes having to spend hours on end to figure out how much they OWE the creditor..., EXCEPT YOU.
So why should I not suggest that you have an agenda? There are a lot of people who make a LOT of money BECAUSE of the way the system is set up. If those people aren't on here defending their livelihood then that means they are stupid. And they are not necessarily stupid. So get over it Rob. Of course there are defenders of the status quo because it is their business. Why should anyone believe that YOU spend so much of your time on here defending the SQ without an agenda. No one is that insane.
Frankly I can't understand how your fellow SQL's don't shuffle to the side of the room when you come in. Actually they do. None of them have taken up your silly numbers of inflation and tax rates, none of them have stood beside you with your self indulgence about getting an e-mail from someone whom you obviously think is a celebrity.
Like I have said many times before, Your Nightmare is the only SQL that has any inkling of an argument. I take him seriously because he actually has the ability to debate AGAINST the fair tax. It would do you well to aquire that ability.
You are like the 60% of colonists who were afraid of standing up to George. The only difference is, you decided to debate about it and lost. At least the meek in 1776 were a little honest about it.
They wanted King George to tax the sale of tea? And give them all entitlement payments?
Wowzers!
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.