Posted on 01/31/2005 7:12:16 AM PST by bmweezer
I had responded only because the experts hadn't yet, but they since have presented a much better explanation than mine and I find that I was in error. I apologize.
The interest rate example is accurate, just misapplied to this situation.
I still do not believe that it is deceitful in any way.
And ??, - if you keep trying to sell it the way you do, as a 23% tax, you have a long row to hoe.
Why not admit it's a 30% tax?
BTTT.
Thanks for your observations. My experience is that he is just as deceitful, but in a slicker, smoother manner. I will hold him in that light until I have enough evidence to the contrary. I have no problem admitting when I am wrong. But in about a year of reading his posts, I am convinced of my present opinion.
The fact that you're not in prison is your bona fides.
Same here.
30% out of what? is the fundamental question.
Taxes must ultimately be taken from some resource to be paid.
So I ask you 30% out of what resoucre is that tax coming so we can determine just what the burden is.
Fat, indeed.
The first income tax was imposed by Abraham Lincoln, without benefit of an amendment empowering Congress to pass one or Lincoln to collect it. Lincoln had everything he needed: he had a war, and he had the Army. He collected the tax, and everyone paid, never mind that it was unconstitutional.
You underestimate politicians and their ability to abuse power. I agree with your interlocutor, the income tax would come back.
Not fair! They have the right to make their case if they want to. And why shouldn't I assume the same thing about your advocacy of NRST?
My own observation of the NRST debate is that most of the avid defenders of the idea are, like the three men who dreamed it in Houston, businessmen or (in the case of the attorney) people whose clients are businessmen whose cash flow would go to the moon if suddenly all federal income and payroll taxes were repealed. Such individuals would be leveraged to any such changeover and shift of business taxes to individual taxpayers, i.e. their own tax bills would rise the same as everyone else's, but the increased tax liability would be dwarfed by their new flows of tax-free income. For them, it's a no-brainer.
For anyone who's retired on a small income, it'd be a disaster.
LOL
Why? I can ignore anyone's postings.
They have the right to make their case if they want to.
Sure they do. They just don't have a right to be heard and replied to.
And why shouldn't I assume the same thing about your advocacy of NRST?
I have posted many times that I am an unpaid volunteer. I have also posted that the FairTax is contrary to my own very narrow situation and self interest. My taxes would soar, but this is the right thing to do.
My own observation of the NRST debate is that most of the avid defenders of the idea are, like the three men who dreamed it in Houston, businessmen or (in the case of the attorney) people whose clients are businessmen whose cash flow would go to the moon if suddenly all federal income and payroll taxes were repealed. Such individuals would be leveraged to any such changeover and shift of business taxes to individual taxpayers, i.e. their own tax bills would rise the same as everyone else's, but the increased tax liability would be dwarfed by their new flows of tax-free income. For them, it's a no-brainer.
Just because there will be a personal gain doesn't mean that they are the only one to benefit. I believe that better than 90% of the people will be better off in terms of taxes paid. I further believe that 100% of us will be better of with the removal of the IRS and the Federal Income Tax. Keeping the current system because of a narrow self interest when doing so hurts the vast majority of people is quite the opposite and quite wrong.
For anyone who's retired on a small income, it'd be a disaster.
You are flat out wrong and that has been amply demonstrated here. Why you choose to persist in this causes me to wonder about your motivations.
("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
You lose points with me when you quote him. Maybe I need to add you to the list of 'avoidees'. You run with some pretty suspicious company.
Actually, if you paid close attention, you would see it is a sarcastic use of one of his standard limp-wrist RiNO comebacks. It stems from a confrontation we had about six months ago. I parted his hair with a blowtorch. He came back with "Whatever......<limp-wrist>" So I took his scalp and wear it on my belt.
Well, you're 870 posts in -- point me to a post number. I tend to disbelieve you from my own instinctual reading, but I'll look at your guys' stuff.
And I'll say it again, I think this is just a way of reloading the Boomers as they go into retirement and their top-line incomes fall, frankly.
I have steadfastly ignored sinkspur for a while now and have no idea that you two were feuding. It's a little hard to read context into one word.
I'm not going to go thru 870 or 87 posts.
In a nutshell...
Price will fall due to competitive forces thus relieving the burden of double taxation as they withdraw and spend their money.
Seniors will, like everyone else, get a prebate check to cover the tax on their new expenditures.
There will be no estate taxes, no gift taxes, no inheritance taxes to drain off their wealth.
Their SS will not be taxed. If they choose to go back to work, they aren't limited in what they can earn.
Might some seniors be hurt? Sure.
But their children may now be better able to help them because they too will be freed from the burdens of the FIT.
When all is said and done, the economic benefits are only the tip of the iceberg. There are so many implications for liberty that I get excited thinking about them.
Gone will be an intrusive and fearsome IRS.
Gone will be the slave aspects of the FIT.
Gone will be the hold on free speech under the threat of losing tax deductibility.
Gone will be the socialist redistribution of wealth with inheritance tax, gift taxes, and estate taxes.
It's 4 AM. I'm tired, but the list goes on. This measure is worth more than the money.
"A retail sales tax would make the freeloaders pay something."
"That contradicts what has been promoted earlier in this thread. I thought it was 'voluntary' as long as you bought untaxed necessities and kept your spending below the FCA (Family Consumption Allowance) limit."
Not at all. The FCA is only available to legal citizens. In effect, illegals would be not only paying taxes (which they do now in the form of taxes imbedded in their purchases), but they would be paying at a disproportionate rate to the rest of us (which they certainly don't do now).
"Excuse me, but this tax will not affect the several billion $ underground economy of the illegal alien population..."
It absolutely will. See my post above.
"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?"
No one is proposing to change the economic structure of the country; the FairTax would simply remove the tax code as an impediment to the economic performance of the country. For example, we would no longer have a tax system which puts US producers at a disadvatage vs their international counterparts.
"Substantial, sudden change like that is NEVER good for an economy."
When Congressman Linder met with Chairman Greenspan about a year ago to go over the FairTax proposal, Mr. Linder started going over the economic benefits. Mr. Greenspan interrupted him to say that he didn't need to do that, since he had gone over the proposal, was familar with its economic impact. He then went on to say that he doubted that you would find an economist anywhere who would disagree, but that the real obstacle would be overcoming the enertia inside the beltway in DC and the tremendous resistence to change.
Of course, Mr. Greenspan was incorrect about not finding an economist anywhere who would argue against the proposal. There are economists who will argue against anything. In addition, as your post so vividly demonstrates, resistence to change is not limited to Washington, DC.
The economic benefits would be enormous.
"Neither. The consumer has 30% more spending money in his pocket.
Let me see ... more money to spend ... demand increases ... supply remains constant ... prices therefore .... DROP????
In your dreams."
Robert Paulsen Post #254
"The point is that you would now be able to really control how much tax you pay by how much discressionary spending you cut out.
And a major part of our economy is discresionary spending."
Let's see now, Mr. Paulsen is worried about demand being so great that (pre-tax) prices won't decline in spite of major cost savings on the part of businesses. Now RobRoy is concerned that demand will be so weak that it will trigger a major economic downturn.
Is it possible that the economists who have studied the FairTax are correct in their view that demand will be somewhere between these two extremes and that the economy will do extremely well?
No. My companies income is a mix of about 75% labor and 25% product sales. If I didn't have to pay the 'employer' portion of the Federal taxes, I could drop the price I charge customers for labor. The prices of hard goods sold would also drop, as my suppliers dropped their prices. My company's customer base is 99% companies and very few individuals.
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.