Posted on 01/31/2005 7:12:16 AM PST by bmweezer
I'm sorry if my response was unclear. I appreciate the information you provided.
I'm starting to give the FairTax solution more thought that I previously had based upon much of the information I have learned on this thread.
I don't believe I've ever really participated in one of these threads, generally because I don't like jumping into 200+ post threads..........this one I saw very early on and it caught my interest.
I'm very glad I've participated....it has indeed been an education. and I appreciate the patience that has been shown to me by the "veterans" of the topic.
The amount of information I have to report to the feds keeps expanding. First it was just my current location, address, and family size. Now you are saying I have to prove my immigration status too? How am I supposed to do that? National ID card? Internal passport?
"HILARIOUS!!! I am literally laughing out loud! Poor babies have to make an honest living? HOWLING laughing, here!"
Me too. I would love to see it happen. I would also love to see Ted and Kerry in jail. I am not holding my breath for either.
"Sales taxes are regressive....and hurt those with lesser incomes far more than those higher up the economic scale."
Actually, the exact opposit is expected to happen. Think about it, 100% of paychecks are given to the recipient, the price of goods fall as embedded taxes are removed and a prebate check is sent to EVERYONE. Worst case scenario is that it is break even for the lowest end of the economic scale. It then removes economic barriers to improving one's lot in life.
If someone can't afford the new car with the lower price, then 30% Sales tax (exclusive) they can still buy the used car tax free. Could that person afford the new car under today's tax rate? That same person will see 100% of their paycheck and receive the prebate.
Check out Neal Bortz commentary when you get a chance. I'm hoping he'll get off his butt and get his book published soon. He is supposed to cover this point in great detail.
I have a dealers lic because I own part of a rent a car business, so I put a dealer plate on it, and pay no sales tax(here it is 8%).
>> Gee... get rid of the parasites currently mucking up the system.
Er...
No. This would NOT be a bad thing. Accountants would still be needed, but would have a much easier job to do.<<
I agree with you on this. But the reality I point out in my post is one of the reasons I think this could not possibly happen. The political will simply is not there to implement it.
Two things. One, 23% is a joke. When push comes to shove, it will not be introduced at that rate, and it will not remnain at that rate.
Two, it's very easy to raise the rate, yet have it appear to have a small impact.
Under the NRST for example, a $100 retail item consists of a $77 product plus a $23 tax (Yes, I know that looks like a 30% tax, but the NRST people say it's really 23%. Different argument for a different day. Bear with me here).
Now, let's say the government raises the NRST from 23% to 26% -- a whopping 13% tax increase! Your retail price goes from $100 to $103 to accomodate the tax.
To the consumer, therefore, that 13% tax increase looks only like a 3% increase. Hey, not so bad, huh?
Amusing......no
Scary.......YES
Unless you work for the government, anyone who supports the IRS is nuts.
And only a trial lawyer would oppose tort reform.
Would all my current savings, including cash, stocks and real estate (less any applicable capital gains taxes), be exempt from NRST when I spend this money, money on which I have already paid income taxes?
"By the way, food, clothing and medicine are excluded from the NRST that is being preposed."
I don't think so, and I don't think we want to give lobbying power to interest groups. The prebate system is a fair short term solution, with my sincere hope that it will be abolished to bring the rate down. Only time will tell on that.
Illegal aliens don't shop at retail outlets? Seems every time I go to Wal-Mart, Target, and other stores there are multiple family reunions among them in the stores. I wait behind them in line at gas stations and grocery stores too.
It's not my "propaganda". I didn't write the original Fair Tax proposal, and while I am in favor of a NRST, I am not particularly enthused about the Fair Tax implementation.
My objection to the original proposal was solely based on there were so many incorrect assertions advanced in it that discussion based on it means treading over a lot of very unnecessary ground.
If the original posting had started from a correct statement of the Fair Tax proposal and then criticized points of it, then I would have no problem -- I have myself reservations about points of the Fair Tax proposal. As it is, there are now many discussions based on the incorrect premises in the original posting and this is wasteful and unnecessary.
I agree with you for the most part, but answer me this:
What prevents them from instituting both systems of taxation now?
Nothing in the tax code, the Constitution, or the law will do that.
The only thing that constrains them now is fear of losing their jobs and fear of losing their lives if they push us too far.
I am not saying final out the door price (after NRST0 goes down, but the retail sticker price goes down.
>>From the way I am understanding the idea of this, my spending would probably increase a bit because I would only have to wait 2 pay periods instead of 3 or 4 to buy that new sofa I saw last month (just an example)<<
Except the $500 sofa would probably now be, after taxes, closer to $800 to $900. And your $2 gas over those weeks was $3.30. And your Latte was $4.25 after taxes instead of $2.74. Of course, if you cut out the Latte and drive less... Then we fall into the point I was trying to make.
Oh, and the sofa is made in China while the people that work at the starbucks, which closed due to the lack of business of people saving to buy a sofa, are now displaced american workers.
People wouold be incented to save up for durable goods which, more and more, are manufactured outside the US.
What makes it so very interesting is that we never can tell what could be just around the corner....;-D
It's a cartoon, dude! You wouldn't illustrate a federal law with a crayon drawing would you*? So don't "illustrate" a proposed change to the U.S. tax laws with a TV cartoon character's behavior.
*Perhaps if you are Barbara Boxer you would, but that's another thread....
"Who makes the arbitrary decision of what is a necessity? Fertilzer is a necessity for a farmer, but not for a Wall Street executive. An automobile is a necessity for someone in a rural area with no mass transit, but not for a city dweller."
Many have probably already posted this to you, but from what I understand HR25 does not exclude any new, end consumer product from taxation. Instead, the prebate system is put into place and everyone is eligible for an equal amount of non-tax spending. This should keep the lobbyist out of the tax code.
Untilt he 16th Amendment is gone, all eliminating the income tax and passing NRST does is open the door to getting the worst of both worlds. I don't want to take that chance, thank you very much.
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.