Posted on 01/31/2005 7:12:16 AM PST by bmweezer
Ah... but here's the catch. Illegals aren't eligible for the FCA, since they aren't legal residents. Their effective rate is equal to the marginal rate because they get no FCA. Meanwhile, a legal resident who doesn't spend all that much has a near-zero effective federal tax rate.
I think that's a good thing. Don't you?
I like the idea that if the guy that is making say '12,000' a year and has a family to feed goes out in his escalade and buys a flatscreen tv for 5 grand. He still has to pay the fed tax on it.
BTTT
Excuse me, but this tax will not affect the several billion $ underground economy of the illegal alien population...
Good grief, you really don't have a clue do you?
The last thing on earth going on in this thread is a comfortable echo chamber.
You caught the viking kitty references, so I can't say you haven't been reading the thread.........but apparently you are a little weak in the comprehension department.
I rather think the guy who wrote the article is as at sea about the Fair Tax Bill as I am, and because he may be an old timer, like I am, is more skeptical of change; and likes to examine all sides of a proposal before endorsing it carte blanc.
There are positive and negative facets to any proposal. These must be weighed one against the other in an unbiased manner in order to arrive at the most acceptable conclusion, IMHO. I am here to learn. We each must do our own weighing.
By providing about as much information as you need to to register to vote. Not by laying out your finances in excruciating detail.
dude, I am trying to eat Dorito's between classes and surf this thread at the same time.
That just is gross.
Le pinge de le zotte.
So you're seriously getting your economic theories from a television cartoon? And you are going to change the economic structure of the world's largest economy because of what a cartoon character does?
Yabbut he knows what endemic means.....He must be one them thar intellekshoals. Bet he drivin a Volvo!!
He hasn't said a peep since that post. Perhaps the cat got his tongue???
Let me see ... more money to spend ... demand increases ... supply remains constant ... prices therefore .... DROP????
In your dreams.
The only way I would accept this is if they do away with the WELFARE STATE.
Cut the dead wood from the country, and make 'em work for a living.
This proposal breaks their rice bowl."
My biggest pet peeve with the current income tax system is that I must pay someone to tell me how much I owe (We are a family corp and we have far to many forms to do to do it ourselves) then if a mistake is made I still could be in violation of the law and not have a frigging clue if I actually did break the law until I hire lawyers and accountants to sift through the mess and tell me.
Second biggest pet peeve is payroll deduction. I have a good many friends who think they don't pay taxes because they get a refund.
Oh man is this gonna be an uphill battle to change this madness!
>> Then wouldn't the removal of tax on your labor be an incentive to earn even more as you would get to keep every penny?<<
Why yes it would. And the fear of really high (and complex) taxes is exactly what disincents many americant to even pursue getting beyond their employee/slave status.
But since income is the starting point, it does not incent you from earning because you have to earn to live.
Most of what we spend is not required in order to live. The mindset of the average american is that you HAVE TO earn everything you earn, but you do not have to spend everything you spend. And if all the taxes are on the back end, it definitely would incent saving relative to spending.
Keep in mind also that if all the taxes you pay on income became a sales tax, and you live in a state that already taxes through sales, then the tax would become a major part of your purchase and something that, unlike an income tax, you could do something about.
Thanks, I appreciate it.
Having long been an opponent of sales and excise taxes as regressive, I never did reject this right out of hand, but was sceptical of it over a flat tax. But this thread is throwing much light on it for me. I'm alaways in favor of LESS government intrusion in people's lives and business.
That makes no sense whatsoever.
Read reply # 3 which is what I was agreeing with. I stand by the author being an idiot comment.
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.