Posted on 01/31/2005 7:12:16 AM PST by bmweezer
Something smells a little funny.
>You've got that right. The author is an idiot.<
Oh, dear, we haven't read and thoroughly digested the thread, so we begin the name calling. The best defense is an offense, right? Give me a break! At least give a valid reason to refute the message other than a nah nah nah nah nah nah.
this is only the half of it. When we get a NRST, they'll decide it isn't enough and therefore must keep the income tax in place. Consider: Last session of TX state legislators a law was passed--Fair Tax bill-- that allowed businesses with old equipment and personal property to use federal guidelines for depreciation of equipment for the purpose of reducing a personal property tax bill. We were nevertheless taxed at the old rate--a difference of 4,500 dollars. When we protested, The Tarrant Co Tax Appraisal District told us they couldn't AFFORD to reduce our taxes. "Are you saying you're going to break the law?" We asked. "Yes," was the answer. "If you don't like it you can always sue." Now who will be able to sue over 4,500 dollars? Certainly not thousands of small businesses who already have equiptment that is over thirty years old. Make no mistake, not only is government not your friend, they're (by their own addmission) crooks!
And under the NRST proposal, if I don't have the 700, then I can't buy the 500 washing machine. So since I don't have the 700 bucks, I don't buy the appliance.
There are several factors that go into the cost of an item. If any one of those factors drives up the cost you can't afford the item. Someone who hasn't managed to scrape together the $500 can't afford one now. Does that mean we take away the store's margin for profit? Of course not. That's just the way of life and it can suck sometimes.
The valid question of whether you can keep the NRST rate down to a point where people's spending habits won't change much should be addressed, but not in such an infantile manner.
And let's not even get started on why a GOP site has all that "progressive/regressive" taxation stuff. That class warfare talk doesn't even belong here.
Shalom.
You lost me here: a "fair tax" in name only, it will have to be a system in which everybody bears a share of the burden commensurate to their ability to pay. That is Communism, sorry no can do.
Thanks! I'm saving the link to read later today when I'm off work.
You posted that revealing paragraph, and expect to taken seriously on this forum? Evidently, you know as much about the NRST as the author of this article.
Why not just do a flat tax? Why is that so difficult?
Currently, when they do retire and draw funds from their retirement accounts they have to pay tax on it. With the NRST, their entire retirement savings are 100% TAX FREE!
This hardly strikes me as "fair" nor does it seem likely to be enacted.
How is removing all taxes on their retirement accounts unfair?
If the AARP can oppose partial privatization of Social Security, which has no impact upon its members, it will certainly rise up against this attempt at double (triple?) taxation.
The AARP opposes SS privatization for political purposes. They are a left wing organization, and they, like democrats in congress, need to have fearful seniors to prey on for membership dues as liberals prey on them for votes.
In the meantime, though, i'd suggest buying stock in companies that had large retail establishments on the Canadian and Mexican sides of the border.
I'd also suggest buying up pesos, since the dollar would become next to worthless.
Because income taxes are by natural, anti-freedom. They assume that the government has first claim over your production. Also, the definition of "income" will require that you continue to provide detailed financial information about yourself to the feds, to prove what level you should be taxed at.
From the economic side, income taxes (even flat income taxes) act like a VAT, artifically inflating the prices of goods and services, and hiding the true costs of taxes from the public.
There is one reason I prefer the NRST to a flat tax. Under a flat tax I still have to report to the government how much I earn every year. As far as I am concerned, that's nobody's business but my own.
Under the NRST I don't report to the government a thing. Retailers report their retail sales in taxable items. That's it. No personal information is collected by the feds on my spending habits or my income or anything.
I gotta love that.
Shalom.
I don't disagree with you.
I just personally have not reached a decision for myself yet on a NRST or just a flat tax across the board.
As I said in another post, basic necessities differ depending upon where one resides or what one does for a living. Who will be making the arbitrary decisions on what does or does not consititute a necessity? Living in mid-town Manhattan, an automobile, and thus gasoline, is really not a necessity..........but living in rural Virginia, both are.
"If I had my druthers, the first way I would like to see taxes fairly dealt with is to get rid of most government bureaucracy"
I still maintain you could fire 50% of federal workers, and NOBODY would know the difference.
And therein lies the problem.
Back up your statement with facts and evidence that the institution of the NRST would cause a "huge recession."
I'd also suggest buying up pesos, since the dollar would become next to worthless.
Again, where is your facts and evidence to back up your claim the US Dollar would become worthless.
Pretty much lost me here .... so the states are silly ?
That is a point I can completely embrace.
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.