Posted on 08/26/2004 11:05:33 PM PDT by n-tres-ted
I would like to see a lot of the other taxes abolished. There is a tax on everything, now-a-days, and the government says they still don't have enough money.
Let me guess....I'm an illegal alien, right ?? Right ?
You're already paying the tax - it's not going to be "in addition to" existing prices. The nrst replaces the taxes you're already paying in prices - but most people don't know they're there.... prices won't change much if at all. That's why dems HATE this idea... makes us all aware of how much we have to feed the beast!
Could someone clarify this for me because I'm not sure I'm getting the premise right. We would pay 23% sales tax on goods? What about those of us in states, like NY who already pay a sales tax of 8.75%. What would be my sales tax on a $20,000 car be? 31.75%? Is this the suggested solution? It stinks paying 8.75%.The actual national retail sale rate in terms people are use to dealing with sales tax in is 29.87%. So your sales tax on that car would be 38.62%!
What is the difference between:
1) "16th made the income tax constitutional,"
and:
2) "it made it constitutional to tax income they way we do it."
Actually it does. Savings are not treated any differently under the nrst with respect to purchasing power. The only difference is that investment income is no longer taxed... your savings will grow faster. There is no reduction in purchasing power because prices will remain stable.
The flat tax won't work for several reasons. First, it keeps the income tax in the law and would not get rid of the IRS. Second, the complexity comes in determining what deductions are permitted, not in the tax rate. If deductions are "simplified" to one size fits all, then businesses will be hurt badly by being unable to deduct reasonable expenses of doing business.
It's just that the included 22% (28% sales tax) has always been invisible. That's the only difference.For those of you unfamilar with these discussions, Principled is refering to one theoretical paper that state with a NRST there would be a 22% drop in producer prices, not consumer prices. That's cool if you're a producer, if you're a consumer you won't see that drop in prices.
Didn't our current tax mess originate from a "flat tax"? If so, I see the flat taxers as just being willing to hit "ctrl-alt-delet".
Me either! Price stability will not be due to anyone's benevolence - it will be due to a desire to survive.
Why doesn't a company go out today and simply increase prices? Why not?
So talk radio guys go on the air touting AFFT's plan in detail without consulting with AFFT before hand?...Right.
Speaking of my "credibility" I at least tool the time to read the bill, something you've obviously never done though you hav no problem making things up or parroting someone elses lies.
But that would piss off our "trading partners" such as China.
He claimed that it would repeal the 16th Amendment! BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA!
And he stuck in the mythical 20% drop in producer prices and claimed the rate would "probably" be less than 20%.
What a buffoon! He's more confused than ever.
Bump for the NRST!
Glancing through this thread, it doesn't appear anyone has addressed the obvious positive aspects of this plan in their criticism of it. When it's all said and done, will we really be paying LESS to uncle Sam? I don't think so, but I could be wrong. But let's say that's right, and that I pay the same amount to the BLOATED government we have today, or even MORE. Like 1-5% more. Even if that's true, then....
1. I will keep, on average, (depending where they 'put me') 20-30% MORE. Now, careful here, because if you're saying something like "47, you fool, you just admitted it's going to stay the same", no I'm noooottt! Think about it. I'll still be paying the same in taxes, yes, but I'll get to KEEP MORE money. So obviously what this means is that I'll still pay the same in taxes (or maybe 1-5% more), but I'll get at LEAST 20% more in TAKE home pay.
2. What about the rise in prices for all goods, as these exorbadant taxes are imposed on all goods? (which, as far as I understand it isn't true, it's imposed on all NEW goods, not used). Even if it's true that it's all goods, then still, as Neil Boortz pointed out, market forces will drive the prices down, as the companies that are making the products WILL NO LONGER HAVE TO PAY THEIR TAXES.
What's the bottom line picture here from these two points? In the worst case scenario (where my net effective taxes go up by 1-5%), I STILL get to keep 20-30% MORE of my own money! Not only that, but after a period of time where free enterprise "works its magic", the prices for everything will be VIRTUALLY THE SAME.
That is unless one has a pessimistic, paranoid version of business, i.e, "Nah 47, all the companies will just 'agree' to keep their prices higher, even though they're not paying any taxes anymore, just to gouge us, the little guy". Yeah, ok, THAT'S a realistic view of free market enterprise. Actually, it's like I said, pretty paranoid.
As a side note, I wonder why some on here, FR of all places, are fighting the idea of getting rid of the IRS and AUDITS. Throw out everything I just said above, and concentrate on THAT. If this system does nothing else but play a shell game with our money, and, in the end, ends up making us pay ~5% more in taxes, BUT, at LEAST, eliminates the threat of AUDITS, can't we all agree that at least THAT makes it worth it?
Or are there a bunch of tax lawyers and CPA's on these NRST threads?
Why doesn't a company go out today and simply increase prices? Why not?Why does any company try to increase their profit margin? Because there in it for the profit. How many times have you heard a company tout "costs are down, profits are up"?
I see what you mean. That does not sound good.
Forget how they "treat" my savings. How I SPEND my savings is the issue. The price of my new car, golf clubs and other things. Let me guess,,,they will cost less,,,right? And you personally will establish a fund to reimburse me for the difference in the most unlikely scenerio that you are wrong?
No, no one trusts that the income tax would be "phased out." The 16th Amendment would be repealed so that the Fair Tax could not possibly be an "add on" to the income tax.
Sorry john but the regressive income tax is an important part of the Communist Manifesto and has nothing to do with a stable government. The citizens under every corrupt government in history have had their prosperity stolen through an income tax.
Let's hope your car wasn't made in Germany and your clubs in Japan.
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.