Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

FairTax Summit in Florida
August 20th, 2004 | AFFT

Posted on 08/20/2004 11:11:23 PM PDT by Remember_Salamis

Hello!

With the recent national media attention on tax reform alternatives we believe we are quite close to the tipping point on fundamental tax replacement. Our website has taken thousands of hits. Our 800 number is ringing off the wall. There is no question the time for positive action is now. We are working with both Presidential candidates staff and expect to get a senior surrogate speaker from both Bush and Kerry. The American people demand a fair and simple federal income and Social Security tax system. Come to Florida and make your views known.

We intend to keep this fire alive.
So we are having a conference, in Florida, in September, when the press will be crawling all over the state due to the hotly contested presidential and senatorial elections. And we'd like you there with us.

2004 Tax Policy & Jobs National Leadership Conference
September 17 through 19, 2004
Orlando, Florida
An invitation to attend



Why? Grassroots leadership is the key to actually moving reform forward. This conference brings together the top national, regional, and state leaders in tax policy, job growth, and economic development. We will examine the current alternatives to educate the grassroots and Congress in tax systems that make our country's goods more competitive at home and abroad, and provide sufficient funding for the reform and assurance of our Social Security system, while ensuring economic opportunities and stability for, and the welfare of, low-, lower middle-, and fixed-income Americans.

Our current tax system exports American jobs rather than American products.

The current income tax system drives up the cost of American manufactured goods and agricultural commodities, to say nothing of its complex, intrusive, inefficient, special-interest-driven nature. Not only does the current system decrease our competitiveness overseas, it increases domestic prices for those who can least afford to pay. Funding Social Security reform is almost as daunting as reform itself. The Social Security system is supported by a narrow, regressive payroll tax, levied heavily on low- and lower middle-income Americans. While Social Security system reform is clearly necessary, this is not the purpose of this conference. Determining a responsible, long-term funding solution for Social Security reform is a purpose for this conference.

Result? Bring job creation and Social Security reform-friendly tax policy to the forefront of our national economic debate.

Who? The Tax Policy & Jobs Conference is sponsored by National Tax Research Committee.

When? September 17 through 19, 2004

Where?
Gaylord Palms Resort & Visitors Center, Interstate 4 @ Osceola Parkway East (Exit 65), Kissimmee (Orlando), Florida, right across the freeway from Disney World

Data for attendees



Very best regards,
Tom


Thomas A. Wright
Executive Director
FairTax.org
tom@fairtax.org
www.fairtax.org
1-800-FAIRTAX




Contributions to Americans For Fair Taxation are not tax deductible because we lobby for you in Washington, D.C.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; Miscellaneous; Philosophy; Political Humor/Cartoons; Politics/Elections; US: Florida; US: Georgia; Unclassified; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: fairtax; salestax; tax; taxes; taxreform
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 241-254 next last
To: lewislynn

The reason that I am asking you for clarification is because I am trying to "get informed". If you would prefer that I not ask for clarification, then by all means let me know.

Now, your point is still not clear to me. If the funding of the program is shifted to a consumption tax, why is there a need for the employee or employer to declare the income of any individual?

You already stated that the benefits paid are not based on the individual's historical income, therefore, your point about declaring income is not clear to me. Wouldn't the "budget" or total benefits to be paid be figured as a percentage of "consumable goods" or GDP (or some other function of figuring total amount of goods purchased) and a percentage tax rate be figured from that total?


81 posted on 08/23/2004 7:47:34 AM PDT by CSM (To spread the wealth the liberal is willing, he'll take YOUR dollar and keep his shilling. -albertp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: CSM


82 posted on 08/23/2004 7:53:00 AM PDT by lewislynn (Why do the same people who think "free trade" is the answer also want less foreign oil dependence?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: CSM
You already stated that the benefits paid are not based on the individual's historical income

Actually you stated that.

83 posted on 08/23/2004 7:54:34 AM PDT by lewislynn (Why do the same people who think "free trade" is the answer also want less foreign oil dependence?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: CSM
The reason that I am asking you for clarification is because I am trying to "get informed". If you would prefer that I not ask for clarification, then by all means let me know

Sorry, but using history as my guide I'm more inclined to think you're trying to trip me up...it won't happen.

84 posted on 08/23/2004 7:57:59 AM PDT by lewislynn (Why do the same people who think "free trade" is the answer also want less foreign oil dependence?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: lewislynn

What you did say was: "SS payouts would have nothing to do with the repeal of the SS tax..."

I assumed that this implied agreement with payouts not being affected by individual's incomes. Sorry about that.

Let me take a look at the other posts and get back to you.


85 posted on 08/23/2004 8:02:17 AM PDT by CSM (To spread the wealth the liberal is willing, he'll take YOUR dollar and keep his shilling. -albertp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: CSM
I believe your SS payouts are, and will continue to be, based on your top 35 earning years.

One of the issues with collecting SS from consumption is that your pay in will be based on spending, your pay out will be based on earnings.
86 posted on 08/23/2004 9:29:01 AM PDT by Your Nightmare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Your Nightmare

One of the issues with collecting SS from consumption is that your pay in will be based on spending.

Except for the fact that the SS/Medicare funding from the consumption tax is held proportionate to the SS & Medicare wage bases.

Refer lewislynn's post #82 extracted from the legislation, the NRST rate is adjusted to assure the amount of tax collect for Social Security & Medicare trusts is the same amount as would be collected under the current respective payroll taxes.

One interesting consequence of that formulation is that the SS/Medicare wage base declines in proportion to an increasing emphasis on consumption as the babyboom generation moves into retirement. The pressure on the NRST rate would be downward in that situation.

87 posted on 08/23/2004 10:43:49 AM PDT by ancient_geezer (Equality, the French disease: Everyone is equal beneath the guillotine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer
I think it was pretty obvious I was talking about an individual's pay into and out of the system.
88 posted on 08/23/2004 11:10:28 AM PDT by Your Nightmare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Your Nightmare

Sorry, I just misread then, seemed the concern was about a disconnect from tax with regard the wage base.


89 posted on 08/23/2004 11:58:22 AM PDT by ancient_geezer (Equality, the French disease: Everyone is equal beneath the guillotine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer; Your Nightmare
One interesting consequence of that formulation is that the SS/Medicare wage base declines in proportion to an increasing emphasis on consumption as the babyboom generation moves into retirement. The pressure on the NRST rate would be downward in that situation.

LOL!

90 posted on 08/23/2004 12:12:30 PM PDT by lewislynn (Why do the same people who think "free trade" is the answer also want less foreign oil dependence?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: lewislynn; ancient_geezer

I guess all these products these old people will be buying will be made by Oompa Loompas.


91 posted on 08/23/2004 12:40:19 PM PDT by Your Nightmare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Your Nightmare
I guess all these products these old people will be buying will be made by Oompa Loompas.

I know, whenever I go by a furniture store, Target, car dealers, you name it...I see nothing but old rich retirees. < /sarcasm >

92 posted on 08/23/2004 12:46:44 PM PDT by lewislynn (Why do the same people who think "free trade" is the answer also want less foreign oil dependence?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: lewislynn
You're another one who needs to take a tax class. The people in the class you're describing probably aren't even required to file...You described a perfect example of someone in my family. Hundreds of thousands in the bank, own their home outright and receive SS checks every month...They haven't been required to file a tax return for 15 yrs.

Oh, really ? Let's see... with that much in the bank they are probably receiving a fair amount of interest income and if they get SS payments I am guessing that will take them above the minimum for filing. Maybe you should squeal on that family member.

Some people are easily fooled. Most all products are foreign born. There aren't any US taxes built into foreign products.

I guess I will have to tell my clients that are in the manufacturing business that they don't manufacture anything.

So since you are such an ace on taxes and manufacturing, I am guessing you are an CPA for numerous businesses ? If not, what do you do. And if you hate the sales tax just what do YOU propose for the perfect fix. Or is it you just like the current system ?

93 posted on 08/23/2004 1:39:02 PM PDT by smokeyb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Your Nightmare
Also, a lot of the medicine the elderly are taking are the type of products that won't go down in price because there is no competition. Look at the price the US customers are paying compared to other countries for the same drug!

You are joking, aren't you ? You aren't falling for that sorry "they cost less in Canada" BS, are you ? Where do you think Canada gets the majority of their drugs from ? And guess who gets to pay for the loss they take up there ?

No competition ? Can you say generic ? That "no competition" doesn't last for ever - they don't get exclusive rights forever.

94 posted on 08/23/2004 1:48:05 PM PDT by smokeyb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: smokeyb
You aren't falling for that sorry "they cost less in Canada" BS, are you ?
Prescriptions aren't cheaper in Canada? So that's all BS, huh?


Where do you think Canada gets the majority of their drugs from?
Um, the US? Makes you wonder why we pay some much more. Don't they have taxes in Canada? It wouldn't have anything to do with prices being what people will pay, would it?


And guess who gets to pay for the loss they take up there?
Why are they taking a loss up there?


No competition ? Can you say generic ? That "no competition" doesn't last for ever - they don't get exclusive rights forever.
First off, I said "a lot of the medicine." Second, you obviously aren't very familiar with the drug industry. The patents are for 20 years and the drug companies hold off new medications so they can release them about the time a similar drug's patent runs out. That or they change the delivery device (eg. extended release) and extend the patent another 20 years. About 50% of the drugs sold are name brand.
95 posted on 08/23/2004 2:06:56 PM PDT by Your Nightmare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: smokeyb
Maybe you should squeal on that family member.

Nope. I see it really bothers you that someone doesn't have to pay taxes (maybe that's why you'd like a sales tax) but it's all legit...Take a tax class or call IRS if you don't beleive me...

I would never stoop to your lower level and "squeal" on them even if it wasn't legit and they weren't family members.

96 posted on 08/23/2004 3:23:21 PM PDT by lewislynn (Why do the same people who think "free trade" is the answer also want less foreign oil dependence?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Your Nightmare

The double taxation comes from people who have already paid federal income taxes on their savings would then have to pay federal sales tax when they tried to spend their savings.




I agree with this, yournghtmare. however if we keep the income tax then people who have paid federal income tax on their savings will still pay the tax built into prices (or as i've seen some say that the cost will be paid by lower wages). so either way, income tax or fair tax, people are going to be taxed when they spend.

under the fairtax, much of the tax is visible. that's the difference i see so far. i don't know about the amount of tax though. is the amount of hidden tax the same as the amount of sales taxes in fair tax? different? or are there differing opinions (likely). where can i go to find info on my own?


97 posted on 08/23/2004 3:39:09 PM PDT by Chilldoubt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Your Nightmare

but what about the "hidden" tax? it may not be the 25% they say, but it must be more than 0%.

i'm still looking for info on that. any ideas?


98 posted on 08/23/2004 4:31:16 PM PDT by Chilldoubt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis

but those are retired people. they have no payroll taxes of 7.65%.


99 posted on 08/23/2004 4:36:13 PM PDT by Chilldoubt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Your Nightmare

I don't think people pay income tax on tax exempt investments.



but when it's spent, the buyer will be paying "hidden" taxes of some amount.

...
You aren't one of those gullible people who think nobody would pay more with a NRST, are you?


i think that would be impossible. does anyone say that? i thought it was just that more people would be paying it...


100 posted on 08/23/2004 4:40:25 PM PDT by Chilldoubt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 241-254 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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