Posted on 03/31/2005 4:42:13 AM PST by CSM
psst. The more money people have the more they will give to charity. Kind of funny how that works. Did you ever notice who is on the boards of various foundations in your area? It ain't welfare recipients. Point: the fair tax creates a boom and everybody has more money. Just like Bush's tax cut gave everybody more money and they took it out there and created wealth and jobs with it. Just Damn.
It had 54, some didn't get re-elected, some ran for senate, some retired.
VOLUNTEERS are at 600,000 and ratcheting toward a million. Want to be a congressman against it when 1,000,000 come a-calling? Ask the NRA how that works.
With computers, this is not a problem.
Taxation on imported goods is the only constitutional tax for running the government.
It keeps the government in line when dealing with foreign powers by keeping them as trading partners and friendly with them because they are the source of the income to run the government.
I don't like the idea, for several reasons.
1) It will actually INCREASE taxes for 95% of the population, especially if it outright replaces the income tax.
2) It will discourage consumer spending and send people shopping underground or encourage cross-border shopping, making it especially bad for those near the Canadian border (and, to a lesser extent, the Mexican border).
3) The sales tax rate would have to be at least 40% to cover the repeal of all the income taxes, Social Security taxes, property taxes and estate taxes.
4) The IRS would not necessarily be abolished - after all, they would still have to administer the sales tax, and that would create a bureaucracy on itself and prone to fraud from corporations (it has happened in other countries).
5) Unless there are generous exemptions and refunds (which would raise the rate even higher), this would really hurt the lower income people the hardest, and small businesses. It benefits no one.
Not to say that taxes are fine the way they are, but this is too radical of an idea.
By the way, is such a tax even constitutional?
Sounds like legal problems, not tax problems...The fairtax doesn't eliminate legal problems.
When you applied to the "b/d" did you show them your liability policy or an insurance binder to allay their fears?
Why? Because I am doing this to avoid some tax liabilities legally but the b/d finds those actions to be in jeopardy of its protection from something or other
So you told your "b/d" if you're able to avoid some tax liabilities you'll follow the fairtax creed of lowering your prices/rates accordingly?...
It's completely accurate. What do you think isn't in it?The statistic for "55,000 pages of tax rules" comes from the fact that CCH's Standard Federal Tax Reporter is 55,000 pages long. The Standard Federal Tax Reporter is a cumulative record of the Internal Revenue Code (including CCH's commentary). It's a history of every law and rule ever. If the 133 page FairTax was passed and added to the IRC, there would be 55,133 "pages of tax rules."Come on YN. You don't really think the above is an accurate statement do you? Don't jeopardize your credibility here as lewis has done.
We should believe you. George Will obviously has a deficiency in facts.It is pretty obvious, isn't it?
From what I've seen Linder can back up 90% of what he has said. You..., maybe 50%.Linder plays the AFT game. He doesn't lie, he just doesn't tell the whole truth. Very Clintonian.
psst. The more money people have the more they will give to charity.psst. The more people save on their tax by giving to charity, the more money they have to give. The chart I linked to showed that pretty dramatically. Did you even look at it?
It had 54, some didn't get re-elected, some ran for senate, some retired.And now it has 29 in the House and none in the Senate.
VOLUNTEERS are at 600,000 and ratcheting toward a million.And what does the AFT consider a "volunteer"? Someone whose donated?
23% is way to high. What would stop them from raising it to support their scams? Start the tax rate at 1%.
I've learned the lessons of history. Tariffs, or anything that impairs free trade, introduces inefficiency into the market which in turn, reduces the overall wealth of nations. Free trade is really just an expansion of Adam Smith's concept of "division of labor."
You need to read some history, and some scholarly economic comment on free trade.
The comparison between free trade and global taxation is misplaced, inapposite. Free trade proceeds from the rational self interest of individuals who enjoy improved positions as a result. Global taxation is imposed from without, against the free will of the taxed, and it enriches only the taxing body, and depletes the capital of the taxed.
Swing and a miss.
You miss the point entirely. Tariffs create barriers to entry for goods produced elsewhere and to a point, encourage foreign direct investment....barrier jumping by placing a token bit of manufacturing here, an end point bit of finishing or packaging perhaps, and the tariff is avoided.
Please read Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations." Read about the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, and the history of Tariff's vis a vis internal US Taxation. 1909 is a good starting point, along with the election of William Howard Taft, his platform, actions after he was elected.
See, you are a globalist.
You need to read some history, and some scholarly economic comment on free trade.
I read my history that is why I'm not a globalist. What are the on tax policy views of the scholars that taught you your globalism?
The comparison between free trade and global taxation is misplaced, inapposite.
Difficult to reconcile, but definately apposite.
Free trade proceeds from the rational self interest of individuals who enjoy improved positions as a result.
My concern is for America's improved position in the world, not subsidizing socialist/communist economies through globalism. My concern is for improving the standard of living of all Americans, not just the white collar class.
Global taxation is imposed from without, against the free will of the taxed, and it enriches only the taxing body, and depletes the capital of the taxed.
Who do you think manages global trade? In your smug arrogance, you still don't see how brainwashed you are. Don't you see that those who have a liberal approach to taxation support globalism? Doesn't that make their trade theory suspect?
It arises specifically because of tax law.
When you applied to the "b/d" did you show them your liability policy or an insurance binder to allay their fears?
OF course. Couldn't affiliate if I didn't.
So you told your "b/d" if you're able to avoid some tax liabilities you'll follow the fairtax creed of lowering your prices/rates accordingly?...
I would gladly lower my fees if I had no income tax liability.
I would gladly lower my fees if I had no income tax liability.Then you would be taking a cut in real income. To avoid this loss in real income, you would have to keep your fees where they are so you can pay the FairTax on your personal purchases.
And what do you know about Ideas? Your name is latin... A dead language... left to those who refuse to condemn the sins of Rome. Why dont you concentrate on reforming yourself instead of social security.You people are distgusting... Damn Distgusting.
1) It will actually INCREASE taxes for 95% of the population, especially if it outright replaces the income tax.
Where'd you get that number? Out of thin air? See http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/faq-main.html#5
2) It will discourage consumer spending and send people shopping underground or encourage cross-border shopping, making it especially bad for those near the Canadian border (and, to a lesser extent, the Mexican border).
From http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/faq-main.html#33 "Does the FairTax improve compliance and reduce evasion when compared to the current income tax? The old aphorism that nothing is certain except death and taxes should be modified to include tax evasion. Tax evasion is chronic under any system so complex as to be incomprehensible. As a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), tax evasion is beyond 2.0 percent, compared to 1.6 percent in 1991. Tax evasion continues to be in the range of one quarter of income taxes collected. Almost 40 percent of the public, according to the IRS, is out of compliance with the present tax system, mostly unintentionally due to the enormous complexity of the present system. These IRS figures do not include taxes lost on illegal sources of income with a criminal economy estimated at a trillion dollars. All this, despite a major enforcement effort and assessment of tens of millions of civil penalties on American taxpayers in an effort to force compliance with the tax system. Disrespect for the tax system and the law has reached dangerous levels and makes a system based on taxpayer self-assessment less and less viable.
The FairTax reduces rather than increases the problem of tax evasion. The increased fairness, transparency, and legitimacy of the system will induce more compliance. The roughly 90-percent reduction in filers enables tax administrators more narrowly and effectively to address non-compliance and increases the likelihood of tax evasion discovery. The relative simplicity of the FairTax promotes compliance. Businesses need answer only one question to determine the tax due: How much was sold to consumers? Finally, because tax rates decrease, tax evasion is less profitable; and because of the dramatic reduction in the number of tax filers, tax evaders will be more easily monitored and caught under the FairTax system."
3) The sales tax rate would have to be at least 40% to cover the repeal of all the income taxes, Social Security taxes, property taxes and estate taxes.
Out of thin air again, huh? Read page 3 of this: http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/GaleRebuttal.pdf
4) The IRS would not necessarily be abolished - after all, they would still have to administer the sales tax, and that would create a bureaucracy on itself and prone to fraud from corporations (it has happened in other countries).
The taxes are collected and audited by the state agencies (which already collect sales taxes) and remitted to the U. S. Treasury. No need for the IRS and it's thugs.
5) Unless there are generous exemptions and refunds (which would raise the rate even higher), this would really hurt the lower income people the hardest, and small businesses. It benefits no one.
Have you ever heard of self employment taxes? A small business owner in the 35% tax bracket pays 50.3% of his income in taxes. Do you really think paying 23% is going to make him worse off? AS for the lower income people, see this: http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/faq-main.html#48
Not to say that taxes are fine the way they are, but this is too radical of an idea.
Not that there's anything wrong with that...
By the way, is such a tax even constitutional?
That's an April Fool's question, right? If it's not there are 45 states in BIG trouble.
Only to detractors.
Well, you did say that non-profits would pay taxes on the goods and services they bought. I showed you in the bill where it said they didn't and you didn't respond. It was on one of these two threads.
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.