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 ...
Thanks for the gratuitious insult. I run several business at present.
"... their paid for whores, I mean 'economists', are very shady with their studies ..."
But not nearly so shady as the Treasury/Brookings Institute combine that propagandizes under color of governmental authority. That's next to criminal if not more so.
And the Jorgenson and other studies clearly set out their assumptions plus their rationale and backup days. The Tax Panel Report do not do so at all. They aren't even clear on what many of their assumptions are - or why. And they certainly throw numbers around like they were spending tax money.
I showed you earlier (if you read it) how in either case, 9% or 23% the contribution of the illegal economy was negligible - something like $4 rather than $23 on a $100 purchase. Perhaps you should go back and read it.
Back atcha!
The money from the 23% figure mostly stays in prices after the FairTax becomes law. The 9% does not and that's the way we've shown it in all comparative purchasing power examples.
LOL, so clear even to this day you deny what those assumptions were.
In fact, the most likely rate is presently 19% rather than 23% ... still revenue neutral. You don't seem to grasp the effect on tax revenue with an expanding economy but a dynamic analysis (which the Tax Panel Report is definitely not) clearly shows it.
He's actually come along ways towards understanding that. He seems to have conceded that only about 9% out of the 23% can possibly be used to reduce prices. That is something they had been in denial about for years.
We've been using he 9% for a long time on the purchasing power studies ... and they even look good with lower price declines, too. It's you who don't know what you're talking about.
Using your logic, we should forget taxing consumers and employees and just tax business because the consumer pays all taxes anyway and taxing business would reduce the government work load and keep the camel's nose out of the individual's tent.
Do you write revisionist history for the Clinton administration? That's the a big fat lie. You are the one who had no clue what the difference is between prediction and an assumption is. You are the one who argued for years and years and years that you would get to keep 100% of your current gross AND prices would come down 23%. It's laughable that you would try to change the story. You are a joke.
Its true, the tax panel report doesn't mention "backup days". Are those the days when the FairTax supporters back track on previous claims?
You also claimed it was 87 cents on a $100 purchase.
Ask him to explain when a table is not a table.
You never can be fully honest, can you?
Yes, I know you're using the 9% figure for embedded taxes on these threads for the purposes of paying or removing embedded taxes. I told you I didn't disagree with this, didn't I?
But that 9% is from a total of 22% embedded taxes. An employer could choose to keep more than 9% for the purposes of paying or removing embedded taxes, couldn't he?
When it is a 'spreadsheet listing' of course.
Yeah, 9% is about what he could reduce prices if businesses were happy earning the same amount. But with his employees pocketing more money and prices going up, will business owners be happy to just maintain their same profits? Seems like a cute way to assume business owners will see their purchasing power decrease.
Yes, he seems to have accepted that. But he doesn't seem to know why.
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.