Posted on 02/17/2008 7:34:33 AM PST by DivaDelMar
1. …believe that taxing the creation of wealth is better for the economy than taxing the wealth when it is spent.
2. …believe that returning people’s tax payments to them is welfare.
3. …have no problem with a tax code that is wordier than the Bible.
4. …believe the IRS is a good department and does a good job.
5. …believe that the worst thing you could do is tax the wealth of old geezers who are living off of the sweat of the younger workforce.
6. …love to tell everyone you see that the FairTax was created by Scientologists.
7. …believe that what Bruce Bartlett says is the gospel and that scores of other credentialed economists are only paid shills.
8. …have a habit of going to online chat rooms and posting insults about the “Fairy Taxers.”
9. …think that calculating a tax the same way as the tax it is replacing is dishonest.
10. …think the economy has always been fine under the income tax.
11. …call the FairTax a “cult” because you can’t think of anything else to say.
12. …believe that cutting one tax by 25% and raising another by the same amount is inflationary.
13. …think inflation is caused by high taxes.
14. …think Milton Friedman is an idiot.
15. …have a soft spot in your heart for European style VAT’s.
16. …wrote the ten planks to the Communist Manifesto.
17. …think the prebate is Marxist but not the Communist Manifesto.
18. …sell some sort of tax advantaged product.
19. …claim you clamor for tax reform but have no earthly idea how to do that.
20. ...howl in outrage when the BATF violates the 2nd Amendment but have no concerns when the IRS violates the 1st, 4th and 5th Amendments.
Proves you’re only here to disrupt the thread (as usual). Big whoop.
You misunderstand the mechanics of the VAT. The value-added tax (VAT) is a multi-stage levy on the value added in each stage of the production and distribution of a commodity or service, from the-earliest stage, up through-the final retail sale. It is not simply collected at the final point of sale. As it is inflicted, tt becomes a component of PRICE—embedded as the Corporate Net Income Tax is embedded, so the consumer utlimately pays it. A VAT is collected and inflicted at every stage of production.
There is no comparison between a consumption based tax that is inflicted at the point of final sale and a European style VAT, none.
Good one. Freepmail me with anymore you have.
Actually, that pretty well describes any "conservative", on just about any topic.
So Bartlett's comments are rendered untrue and invalid because Bartlett presumably has a vested interest in the way things are done now?
Everyone has a vested interest in something or other..... including the Fair Tax, in some cases.
So.....what and where is your vested interest?
Or Kotlikoff's, who has been advocating breathlessly for the Fair Tax for years? Seems like pride can be a "vested interest", too -- pride, rep, chops, and the possibility of further consulting work down the line.
Oh, we are just all corrupt and venal -- to venal to have an opinion worth ventilating, or even listening to!!!
lol
What do you see as advantages that the income tax has over a consumption tax?
There are a lot of economists who advocate for the FairTax. It has somehow slipped my attention that there are those that advocate against it.
In past lives they sold the whole prohibition scam to America - we all know how long that lasted..
I’ve never suggested that nominal prices will remain constant. NEVER. I have consistently maintained that purchasing power will remain constant when the Fair Tax is implemented. The Fair Tax changes the point at which the tax is collected. To the extent that your purchases exceed the poverty level, everyone will pay tax out of their gross pay. The question, properly framed, compares purchasing power pre-Fair Tax and purchasing power post-Fair Tax.
Removing the embedded taxes cannot possibly raise the nominal pre-tax price of an item. Your suggestion that “Many things will actually cost more per item after you account for your dreaded embedded taxes. So MANY things will now cost 1 - 10 % more after removing the embedded taxes than they do now” is nothing short of absurd. Simply removing a component of cost cannot increase the nominal price of the item.
If suppliers and retailers did not reduce prices in response to market forces, Wal-Mart would be a failure.
The rest of the lettered economists haven’t caught their breath from laughing so hard yet. Give them time...
We have all been giving you an enormous amount of time to answer some very simple questions about your position on the income tax vs. the FT. How much more time should we give you?
Asked and answered many times.
You just can’t hear the answer.
(”we” bing the voices in your head again?)
Refresh my memory. Do you favor maintaining the income tax and the IRS as they currently exist? Everyone on this thread would like to see how you originally answered that question.
please put another quarter in the slot and call someone who cares..
IOW, you don’t want to discuss the topic, you simply want to disrupt, hurt insults, hold hands with your comrades and make yourself look foolish. Is that about it?
There's your problem. If food is one of your major expenditures then the FT will hit you harder than a household with no kids - especially in a Sate that does not now sales tax unprepared food. Even if you account for the prebate. A mother of 4 teenage boys will never buy into the FT since she does not want a adjusted gap increase in her food costs. There is no way the purchasing power will stay the same. Virtually everyone is different.
It took years for Wal-Mart to break into the food industry. Why? Because of the way food is distributed. They have taken lower margins on food than a traditional GS and some suppliers have stopped doing business with them. Their ability to buy meat has been hurt because of their practices - for example.
If it was irrelevant you wouldn't make such a big deal out of claiming you have answered it. You haven't. I don't expect you ever will.
Do you have a list of economists who have stated their opposition to the FairTax?
You once claimed that if there were 75 who lent their names to it then there were 75,000 who thought it was stupid. You subsequently claimed that there were a total of 45,000 economists in America. Which do you want to defend?
Do you support maintaining the income tax and the IRS as they currently exist?
Frankly, you have been all over the place on this. But the one thing you have never done is answer the question directly.
Why do you think that maintaining the income tax would be better for America than adopting the FairTax?
The only answer you have ever given to this question is denying you support the income tax. But asked what you would support in place of it you claim you have answered that many times. You haven't.
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.