Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Save America with the ‘Fair Tax Act’
The Courier ^ | August 31,2006 | Gordon Bishop

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 ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: dontdrinkthekoolaid; fraudtax; redherring; scam
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 601-620621-640641-660 ... 1,141-1,146 next last
To: Always Right
Assuming the government can tax itself to raise revenues is not honest.

If that assumption were true, we could all get rich just by moving money from one pocket to another.

621 posted on 09/07/2006 8:52:44 AM PDT by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 616 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
Well, obviously you're not always right, Rongie.

The Tax Panel evaluated some hypothetical retail sales tax that doesn't exist - that part is right.

Claiming that it shouldn't tax government, though, is quite incorrect since the income tax does so and all of the so-called flat tax plans do so as well. There is absolutely no rationale for NOT having the government tax itself since they do now. Not doing so would merely help the expansion of government - which is exactly the opposite of what anyone should want. The issue is not whether the taxing of government provides revenue or not, but whether it keeps the government from enlarging itself with a tax advantage compared to private businesses.

622 posted on 09/07/2006 8:54:04 AM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 616 | View Replies]

To: pigdog
"Whoever "pointed that out" to you needs to have his pointer examined since for a year or more now there has been no such number used for embedded tax. The figure used presently (which the naysayers stipulated to) is 9%, not 22-23%"

Mr. Boortz hisself.

"The extensive research behind HR 25, The FairTax Bill, shows that the average embedded taxes in every consumer product or service is about 22%. In some industries, such as leather goods, the embedded tax is smaller. In other industries, such as homebuilding and construction, the embedded tax is higher, but it averages out to somewhere between 22 and 23%. With the passage of The FairTax Bill, those embedded taxes disappear. These embedded taxes include the combined tax burdens of all entities involved in bringing those goods or services to market, and that includes you, the employee, and the taxes you incur as a result of your employment."

"since for a year or more now there has been no such number used"?

What? And if I wait another year, what will the number be?

623 posted on 09/07/2006 8:56:24 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 604 | View Replies]

To: pigdog
Moreover if you read the Report you'll see that they've assumed twice the level of evasion as present now without any reasoning as to why...

No, they don't figure twice the current evasion rate, and they do explain the logic used to assume evasion. You would know that if you read the report and not just the FairTax rebuttal.

624 posted on 09/07/2006 8:57:23 AM PDT by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 619 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom
"Why not call it what it is, CReative Assumptive Purchasing Power."

Or CRAPP for short.

625 posted on 09/07/2006 8:59:27 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 617 | View Replies]

To: pigdog
The issue is not whether the taxing of government provides revenue or not, but whether it keeps the government from enlarging itself with a tax advantage compared to private businesses.

You claim the government taxes itself now, and yet, who could deny that government grows even as we post. That's a meaningless argument if ever I read one!

626 posted on 09/07/2006 9:01:20 AM PDT by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 622 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom
I see you're falling back on your old, trite "nothing is knowable" nonsense.

"... there are no real numbers to use ..."

Oh, but there are. The CBO figures for the comprehensive household income tax rates and amounts and they cover some 120 plus million taxpayers. In addition the FairTax prebate figures are also real and readily available. The price reduction of 9% was stipulated to by the naysayers (though many FairTax supporters think it will be a greater reduction, the examples use the 9% figure).

The rest of the work is simple arithmetic that anyone with some facility with numbers (not you, of course, since you've shown none) could do. The examples merely use the same income under the FairTax as under the income tax and the comparisons are very valid - even if you don't care for them because they show your income tax in a bad light.

627 posted on 09/07/2006 9:03:27 AM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 617 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

LOL!


628 posted on 09/07/2006 9:03:53 AM PDT by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 625 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom
There is nothing at all in the Tax Panel report to indicate very much of the methodology they used and even the facts of the purposeful base shrinking (and old Bill Gale tactic) or ballooning evasion rates when, if anything, the opposite is true, nor are any of the other assumptions inimical to the FairTax are shown in any forthright way but must be dug out of the dozen or so chapters (plus intro and appendix). A classic propaganda tactic.

The FairTax studies, OTOH, are generally very careful to cite assumptions and sources and so are better done by far since they are meant for public debate (the Panel report is not - it's an inside the Beltway con job directed at politicos). You'll find many of he pols who wish to oppose the FairTax will cite this report (regardless of its serious flaws) to their constituents as justification for not supporting the FairTax. That's a false justification if ever there were one.

629 posted on 09/07/2006 9:14:07 AM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 618 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom

No, that's not at all what was said. Don't try the strawman taxtic of putting words in my mouth.


630 posted on 09/07/2006 9:15:33 AM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 620 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom
You think you're a government now??? Amazing!!
631 posted on 09/07/2006 9:17:03 AM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 621 | View Replies]

To: pigdog
Claiming that it shouldn't tax government, though, is quite incorrect since the income tax does so

No they don't. Show me where. The fairtax will be 'generating' some 15% of revenues by the government taxing government. There is nothing like that under the current system. A completely fradulant proposal, which is why the tax panel correctly altered the fairtax in their analysis.

632 posted on 09/07/2006 9:18:52 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 622 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom
Both my grandfathers were contractors, that would have surprised them to hear.

Me too. But pigdog has zero sense of how business works. He just thinks all businesses are guaranteed some set profit margin.

633 posted on 09/07/2006 9:21:07 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 620 | View Replies]

To: pigdog
The FairTax studies, OTOH, are generally very careful to cite assumptions

LOL, really. That is why it took the AFFT some 10 years to find out that their Jorgenson studies assumed that workers take home pay will stay constant. AFFT lied about that for a long long long time. The fairtax organization with their paid for whores, I mean 'economists', are very shady with their studies.

634 posted on 09/07/2006 9:24:48 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 629 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
You can search through every thread on FR and should you do so you'll not find me agreeing with Boortz on this claim - since I don't. As I said, he needs to have his pointer examined if that's an accurate quote.

And keep in mind that Boortz is attributing this to research behind the FairTax ... most likely one of Jorgenson's studies. Other economists have shown other interpretations.

Regardless - the 9% figure I gave is the figure that even the naysayers have stipulated to here and that's the price reduction used in our comparative purchasing power studies. If you wait another year it isn't likely to drop below 9% on these threads but might increase to, say, 12-15%, As for The FairTax Book - who knows???

635 posted on 09/07/2006 9:25:02 AM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 623 | View Replies]

To: pigdog
"and that's the price reduction used in our comparative purchasing power studies."

Well, price reduction, that's different. In your case, you're taking out 22% in embedded taxes, using 9% to reduce prices, and passing on the rest to the employee. Fine.

Others may choose to use all 22% to reduce prices. But that doesn't change the fact that there's 22% embedded in there to begin with, which was the only point I was making when I said that, today, the drug dealer is paying 22% on everything he buys.

636 posted on 09/07/2006 9:44:03 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 635 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Well, price reduction, that's different. In your case, you're taking out 22% in embedded taxes, using 9% to reduce prices, and passing on the rest to the employee. Fine. Others may choose to use all 22% to reduce prices. But that doesn't change the fact that there's 22% embedded in there to begin with, which was the only point I was making when I said that, today, the drug dealer is paying 22% on everything he buys.

Yep, if the 22% figure is correct, 60% of that comes out of the employee's paycheck in the form of withholding and FICA taxes.

Funny how piggiepooch can't seem to figure out that simple idea after all these years.

637 posted on 09/07/2006 10:02:15 AM PDT by balrog666 (Ignorance is never better than knowledge. - Enrico Fermi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 636 | View Replies]

To: I_Like_Spam
Have to repeal the 16th Amendment first. If the 16th isn't abolished, the real possibility is that we could end up with both the Fair Tax and an income tax and be much worse off than before.

Congress critters would have passed a consumption tax on top of an income tax a long time ago but they knew the outrage from their constituents would result in them losing their jobs. An integral part Americans For Fair Taxation is to ensure the 16th amendment is abolished along with passing The Fair Tax.
638 posted on 09/07/2006 10:13:08 AM PDT by Man50D (Fair Tax , you earn it , you keep it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 574 | View Replies]

To: RobFromGa
Anyone with a functioning BS detector would know that your claim that the average American was going to cut his overall Federal tax bill by more than 50% is ridiculous, and that any "study" that shows this is using bad assumptions or is being grossly misrepresented. That can be said without even looking at the calculation. The result is economically impossible.
Not only that but if anyone with even the slightest bit of savvy (which the poster suggesting such has none) knows that any proposal of that idiocy has less than no chance of ever being looked at...that is after being laughed out of the halls of Congress.

I sense desperation.

639 posted on 09/07/2006 10:32:05 AM PDT by lewislynn (Fairtax = lies, hope, wishful thinking, conjecture and lack of logic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 573 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
Government taxes itself now by paying employees more that they would need to do if they (the employees) were not paying income tax; thereby taxing itself. The government could have exempted themselves from paying their own income tax - but they did not. The same thing applies to all government suppliers who pay THEIR employees more due to the income tax. The same applies to state/local government government employees as well.

Claiming that the government should not "tax itself" is both dishonest and incorrect since the income tax does not and all of the various flat tax proposals do not untax themselves either. You are merely ignorant of the facts, apparently.

640 posted on 09/07/2006 10:47:05 AM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 632 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 601-620621-640641-660 ... 1,141-1,146 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson