Posted on 01/31/2005 7:12:16 AM PST by bmweezer
Good point. But that was a long time ago.
Interesting points. Thanks.
The short and direct answer is NO. BUT, there is more to the answer than that........The fallacy in the argument "But it's already been taxed!!" is the notion that just because there's no "tax" listed on your sales receipt that you aren't paying taxes. IN fact you pay dearly, but it's hidden from view. The ball to keep your eye on here is total purchasing power. Will you be better or worse off under the FairTax? That's the bottom line most people want to know. Unless you're one of the idle rich, you'll be better off under the FairTax and here's why:
The cost of goods produced in the US and to a lesser extent those produced abroad, include the embedded cost of all entity level taxation and the cost of compliance with our tax code. This is passed on to you in several different ways and impacts your ability to purchase goods and services in gross total.
When we tax our corporations, we tax ourselves in that the corporation just passes that cost along to the consumers in the form of a higher price, the investors in the form of reduced return on investment or to the employees in the form of reduced wages and benefits.
In your situation, as an investor and consumer (working too?)....you're likely to be picking up significant hidden tax costs. They come to you labeled as part of the price of a good or to you in the form of reduced return on investment. Here's a link to a pictorial example of how the cost of our tax system cascades and adds to the price of a loaf of bread. Please see: http://www.atr.org/taxbites/bread.html
When the FairTax is implemented, some economists have estimated that consumer prices will drop by as much as 30% because we will no longer impose taxes at each level of production AND the taxable entities will no longer have to employ tax accountants and attorneys to figure out the way to pay the least possible tax. It is impossible to quantify the savings for each good because the savings depends on the number of times the good has changed hands in the production process. Recognizing this as a potential source of savings, several mergers were instituted to "vertically integrate" businesses to avoid the multiple layers of taxation. However, the IRS cracked down on "vertical integration" of businesses several years ago and have since instituted strict regulation of "transfer pricing" between artifically created entities. So we're stuck until we eliminate corporate taxation altogether.
Once the tax and compliance costs are removed from the supply chain, prices should fall precipitously. Once the economy reaches equilibrium, your dollars should purchase the same goods and services that you are able to purchase today....the only difference is that you'll see a clearly labeled "tax" on each receipt.
Another thing to remember is that if you hold a valid SSN, you will receive a monthly "prebate" equal to the tax which will be charged on poverty level expenditures. This will mean that ALL poverty level spending, regardless of whether it's from current wages or savings will be TAX FREE.
Moreover, if you are working, you'll be able to keep your entire paycheck, less state, local and benefit deductions. The amounts currently withheld for Federal Income Tax and FICA/Medicare will be included in your net check. You'll get a pay raise on day one when the fair tax is enacted.
So when viewed in concert, the Prebate, the price reductions and the raise you'll get on day one....you'll probably be better off as soon as the fair tax is enacted. Those who stand to lose are those who spend lavishly.
The most important aspect of this legislation is that it removes from the government, the right to reach into my paycheck and confiscate that portion they deem legal. In place of that right, is the obligation to cut every holder of a valid SSN a check......I sure like the way that river flows. IMHO, the liberty enhancing benefits of this legislation outweigh all other aspects.
Hope that helps. Please respond if you have any other questions. I'll be happy to answer.
Quite ejoyable.
Thanks for sharing.
Welcome to FR.
I am the forum wraith.
I look for foolhardy trolls.
Alons for you..
Would mailing a Naked Mole Rat to your congresscritter be considered terrorism? What about some pre-owned diapers? I'm in a Bad Mood with politicians today!
Hard observations?
From you?
Not hardly.
Eliminating all federal withholdings from the paycheck puts more money in the bank each payday. Less money going to the government out of my paycheck means increased money for me.
It is then up to me to decide how to spend it.
Under the current system I must control my spending because I DON'T control the taxes. Under this proposal I still control my spending but by doing so I DO control the taxes.
"By providing about as much information as you need to [] register to vote," I assume there would be an end-of-year type of reporting and then a rebate (?).
You would update your application annually with Social Security Administration and receive the tax pre-bate monthly. It is based on the size of your household not income or wealth or actual expenditure.
Refer:
H.R.25Fair Tax Act of 2003 (Introduced in House)
`CHAPTER 3--FAMILY CONSUMPTION ALLOWANCE
|
Alright... just answer this question without spinning or evading: Other than that one-line throwaway (unfounded and unsourced) comment you posted earlier, do you have anything that says that Dr. Jorgensen does not stand by his earlier work?Other than the quote of Dr Jorgenson saying the AFT's rate is too low do I having any quote of Dr. Jorgenson saying the AFT's rate is too low? No, just the quote of Dr. Jorgenson saying the AFT's rate is too low.
Just think of how Speaker Gingrich was pilloried when he suggested trimming certain costly administrative agencies that fell within the purview of the federal government.
I still remember how the public employee unions-flush with cash from compulsory union dues-were able to successfully portray his proposal to reform the Health Care Financing Administration as an all-out assault on the Medicare program.
I can only answer NO to one of your questions.......guess which one? LOL!!!
You register name, address, and SSN for each household member (probably DOB as well). Then, you get a monthly payment of 1/12 times the NRST rate times the poverty line for the number of adults and children in the household. No receipts to keep, no additional filing -- you'd only need to refile when family status changes (birth, death, marriage, divorce, etc.) or when you move.
I remember. Public employees' unions are the elephant in the living room, so to speak.
I'd support tax reform - whether a flat tax or a sales tax - that would *reduce* Federal revenue, AND came with a prohibition on deficit financing. Cut off their cash!
My question was borne of my initial skepticism that a consumption tax for consumers only could make up for lack of corporate tax. After looking over the fairtax.org site, I now see that it's possible.
Getting back to the actual flow, I take it that a manufacturing corporation would not pay tax on items it purchases to produce a product; otherwise, the cost of the ultimate product, before mark-up is considered, would be exponentially higher because of the successive generations of tax-paid being forwarded to the end-user. So by a corporation's not paying taxes on parts purchased, the cost of the end product (before profit is added) is theoretically cheaper.
Do I have this right?
Oh, no, you're from NEW YORK CITY!!!!! FOFL!
Good idea. I like it, but I think that Marx phrased it a little better. He said: "From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs."
Doesn't that work a little better for you?
MY GOD, doll. Why do you want to cling to a failed system?
Why do you want the IRS to maintain a presence in our lives?
Why do you believe that the government has a right to know how much you earn?
You can't even answer a simple yes or no without spinning the answer. Let me rephrase the question: do you have any reference where Dr. Jorgensen provides any founding or reference that AFT's rate is too low?
Remember that the phrase "it is well known" is basically code for "I want this to be so to prove my current point, so I'm just going to assume it is true, even though I can't show it".
That would be ugly nativism rearing its ugly head, economics be damned. Its like adopting Buchananism without looking at his greased up head.
Now you're getting warm and figuring out the purpose of this......
For them, its not really about the economy - like any good group of cons, the guys selling this snake oil can convince good but gullible people that this is a good thing, and they don't really care about the disruption.
There's always been a populist fringe that wanted to see a poorer, balkanized America. Seems to fit some romantic notion of the "liberty" of a peasant tyranny invisibly controlled by a few.
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.