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

Skip to comments.

Imagine receiving 100% of your paycheck!
townhall.com ^ | August 27, 2004 | Neal Boortz

Posted on 08/26/2004 11:05:33 PM PDT by n-tres-ted

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 441-447 next last
To: Principled
It's just that the included 22% (28% sales tax) has always been invisible.

Then how do you know how much it is or that it's even there.

Since you think you do know where and how much it is, do what no one else can, demonstrate, not explain, how it works...

61 posted on 08/27/2004 8:05:43 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 50 | View Replies]

To: lewislynn

But the single mother of two would receive the prebate of her sales taxes, so would pay no payroll taxes and no sales tax. She would be far better off than now.


62 posted on 08/27/2004 8:06:08 AM PDT by n-tres-ted (Remember November!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Malsua
What about Savings? I finally get to a point in my life where I'm putting money away. The fair tax comes in and it loses 30% of its value?

No. It retains all of its value.

Fair tax on savings

Fair Tax FAQ

Check 'em out. They're quick and to the point. Come back w/ questions...:0)

63 posted on 08/27/2004 8:06:43 AM PDT by Principled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green

"23% is way too high for a blasted sales tax anyway."

I agree, as well as just under half the American population. However, I also see this as a great way to open the eyes of the moochers. Once they see what their greed costs us all, they may just come over to our side to reduce the size of the Fed!


64 posted on 08/27/2004 8:07:27 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 9 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green

Because the prebate is the mechanism that relieves poor people of the burden of paying payroll taxes or sales taxes before they are allowed to feed themselves and their families. "Regressive" has always been the main line of defense against the sales tax as a replacement for the income tax; but no more!


65 posted on 08/27/2004 8:08:48 AM PDT by n-tres-ted (Remember November!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Hemingway's Ghost
I think this is where this idea falls apart. I just don't think there's any way in hell a company's going to start charging lower prices because their costs are less. I think retail products will still cost the same as they do now, and the companies who produce these retail products will simply pocket extra profits.

Competition will prevent this. If you don't think competition will force pricecs down and wages up in an amount corresponding to the eliminated costs, then how do you explain today's pricing and wages being competitive?

66 posted on 08/27/2004 8:09:01 AM PDT by Principled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: n-tres-ted
Imagine receiving 100% of your paycheck!

If more people received 100% of their paychecks and then had to write out a check every 3 months for income tax, Social Security tax, and Medicare tax, they'd be a lot more wary of government promises of largess.
67 posted on 08/27/2004 8:09:22 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Prime Choice

Much easier to catch co-ops than the many tax cheats and the cash economy we have now.


68 posted on 08/27/2004 8:10:22 AM PDT by n-tres-ted (Remember November!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Comment #69 Removed by Moderator

To: n-tres-ted

Not sure. In Ca, we already pay 8.25% sales tax which would make the rate 28.5% to 31.5%. Would not be a savings to me.


70 posted on 08/27/2004 8:12:09 AM PDT by television is just wrong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: n-tres-ted
100% of what paycheck?

I paid as much as 50% of all my pay to the government most of my working life, and now that I'm ready to retire and spend whats left, they will no longer tax earnings, but spending.

Yeah, this thing will look real good to folks in my situation.

71 posted on 08/27/2004 8:12:16 AM PDT by Protagoras (" I believe that's the role of the federal government, to help people"...GWB, 7-23-04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rightwing Conspiratr1

"I wonder what the answer would have been if the sales tax were 18% and an across the board tariff on foreign durable goods of 5% were in place, 30% for Communist countries if we trade at all."

Now, that looks like a reasonable way to address these issues. Thanks for the insight......


72 posted on 08/27/2004 8:12:20 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 35 | View Replies]

To: CSM
BTW, the 16th made the income tax constitutional,...

No - it made it constitutional to tax income they way we do it. The 16th is not what allows our income tax... it only allows it not to be apportioned IIRC.

73 posted on 08/27/2004 8:12:39 AM PDT by Principled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Richard-SIA

Competition is the reality of life for all businesses, and particularly for small ones that enjoy no monopoly. Competition will take care of prices, and the savings on compliance alone will be the economic equivalent of ten major tax cuts all rolled into one.


74 posted on 08/27/2004 8:15:01 AM PDT by n-tres-ted (Remember November!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: lewislynn
The lies and misunderstandings in this article says more about the lack of credibility of AFFT,..

I disagree.

First, this guy is a talk-radio guy. He doesn't have anything to do w/ AFFT. A talk-radio host's errors/misunderstandings say no more about the credibility of AFFT than it says about your credibility.

75 posted on 08/27/2004 8:16:01 AM PDT by Principled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas

If the companies didn't drop their prices, the doors would be wide open for me to start a company that could offer competitive products for lower prices. The market would adjust as quickly as new companies could begin operation. That would vary from industry to industry, but it would happen over time.....


76 posted on 08/27/2004 8:16:50 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 54 | View Replies]

To: Principled
Competition will prevent this. If you don't think competition will force pricecs down and wages up in an amount corresponding to the eliminated costs, then how do you explain today's pricing and wages being competitive?

Retail prices always go up. People get used to valuing goods a certain way and don't flinch at slight increases. Retail prices only seem to go down for obsolete products or products on the verge of obsolescence.

I simply can't envision retail prices dropping on the order of 20% across the board due to nothing other than manufacturer or producer benevolence. I simply don't think producers or manufacturers will pass any savings on through to consumers: I think they'll pocket the difference. If I were a businessperson, I sure as hell would. You're not in business to be a great guy; you're in business to make money.


77 posted on 08/27/2004 8:17:10 AM PDT by Hemingway's Ghost (Spirit of '75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Dallas59

Better rethink and adjust your math calculations. The major economists who have studied this predict lower prices for such goods, not higher ones.


78 posted on 08/27/2004 8:17:23 AM PDT by n-tres-ted (Remember November!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer
Thanks for your response. After reading though, It sounds like the government will have more power.

First he says no federal income tax. Then next he calls it a National tax. What's the difference?
So say the National Tax starts at 23%. Few years go by and that's not enough. They bring it to 30% and so on. Please, don't tell me to believe they would never raise that number!

Now, what is lowering the cost of food, clothing, shelter, and transportation? Just exactly how is that guaranteed? Is the government going to oversee pricing of independent business? Hmm, so business will have government controls?? It sounds scary to me.
79 posted on 08/27/2004 8:17:56 AM PDT by GodBlessUSA (Support, Prayers and Thanks to our Troops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Principled
For this reason, HR 25 makes the taxation of any kind of income illegal

How about that self employed artist? Does he have to collect and remit 30% of his/her income when he receives payment for someone's appreciation of his talent?...I thought so.

80 posted on 08/27/2004 8:18:41 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 53 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 441-447 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