Posted on 09/15/2005 7:03:21 AM PDT by groanup
Dear groanup,
"What I see are individuals who have an apparent agenda (I am saying apparent, not definite) in maintaining the status quo and would greatly suffer if the fair tax were implemted."
LOL. You just can't seem to accept that folks who disagree with you might have legitimate cause. They have an "agenda" for maintaining the status quo. You seem to actually believe your own propaganda, and leave no room for the concept that you could be wrong.
Frankly, groanup, this is cultish behavior.
sitetest
Sorry. You either have never invested in the stock market or you have a very short memory.
For folks who will actively manage their investments, even once retired, volatility is also a useful tool.
Sure. Every retired person I know loves to see his account decrease by 20% every now and then. It keeps them young at heart.
For the long haul, inflation is a serious risk for any type of fixed income asset.
Try ANY asset. If inflation robs you of purchasing power the assets themselves lose that power. Even stocks.
However, more often, rates don't provide that margin.
Please show me a time when real bond yields were negative.
As for me, these "lies" have served me well for 20 years, including through the collapse in 1987, and the recent bear market.
You say you like volatility. You say investing in stocks is the only smart choice. Yet you imply that you sailed through the recent bear market with ease. Uh huh. Forgive me for being more than just a little skeptical.
Anyway, I have a question.
Not enough information. Does he need to make another 25 million for some reason?
Dear Always Right,
As you point out, according to at least some of the NRSTers, taxing one's income is inherently immoral. Yet, taxing one's spending is not.
I don't really get the logic of that, myself.
They say it's "voluntary" what one spends, but, heck, to a large degree, it's also "voluntary" as to what one earns, no? You want more income? Work more. Improve yourself, get a better job. You want less income? Work less.
I mean, how "voluntary" is spending? I need food, I go buy it. How is that all that voluntary? I need a new sofa, I go buy it. How is that voluntary?
Well, I guess I could raise my own chickens, grow my own vegetables, and build my own furniture. That's true. Then I wouldn't need to buy all that stuff, and in that sense, my spending IS voluntary.
But heck, you don't like paying so much in income taxes? Well, then, don't earn so much! Instead of going out to work, raise your own chickens! Grow your own vegetables! Build your own furniture! Then you won't need the money to buy those things! LOL!!
Actually, at the root of it all, Always Right, I think some of these folks are puritans. In the worst sense of the word. They're afraid that someone, somewhere, is HAVING FUN!! Folks are CONSUMING!! The little devils!! * chuckle *
I guess my view as a small businessman is I LIKE it when folks consume stuff. That's what justifies keeping businesses open. That's what makes it worthwhile for the grocery and the realtor and the homebuilder and the electric supply place to stay open. And as I have clients who are all these things, that's what keeps my business going.
So, I don't see why a big hairy tax on consumption is any more moral than a big hairy tax on income.
What I'd like is for folks to stop with the distractions and work on the real problem - the fact that the government imposes these big hairy taxes at all.
sitetest
Great post. Well, I'm outta here. Unlike perhaps some of the NRSTers, I don't get paid for wasting my time here, so I'm going to go do something useful with my day.
I see this is considered cynicism. Perhaps it is, but I see it as one of the most accurate and profound statements made so far. For others though it has the unfortunately quality of common sense.
Once again, I think this points out a schism in attitude between Us and Them. Add to that the recurring theme of the "unfairness" of some having more than others and we probably gain insight into the true political differences at the heart of the matter.
Dear groanup,
I caught your post as I was wrapping up other work. Forgive me if I don't respond anymore today.
"You say investing in stocks is the only smart choice."
No, I never said that at all. Here's one instance of what I actually said:
"Most folks with that kind of money invest in various types of equities, some bonds, some other types of debt instruments, and real estate. Investment in equities will yield a total return, on average, of around 10% annually, for the long-haul."
I'll add to that comment so you can better understand my views: How an investor allocates his assets will depend on his individual circumstances. For some folks, a portfolio heavier on bonds will be appropriate, for others, it won't be. I even conceded that for an 85 year old fellow on death's door, perhaps even all tax-free bonds might be appropriate.
However, for most folks, including most wealthy folks, equities are, and will remain an important part of the asset allocation picture.
"Not enough information. Does he need to make another 25 million for some reason?"
No.
"Yet you imply that you sailed through the recent bear market with ease."
Nah, it was a tough road. But I certainly didn't lose anything approaching what the Dow lost, or the S&P 500, or especially what the NASDAQ lost.
Then again, I really didn't get into the whole "dotcom" thing. So, I didn't have stocks that seemingly grew to the trees prior to the bear market, either.
And interestingly, although I'm not currently invested for income, the amount of income I received in dividends rose during that period.
sitetest
You guys really don't get it do you? Ever heard of the American dream? Nah, too corny. As for me and my retro adherance to capitalism and freedom, allow me to first accumulate wealth. Then I'll decide what to do with it.
Working is voluntary? How so? That would mean eating drinking and staying warm is voluntary also. Guess I'll never figure you guys out.
Well done. That would mean you probably were heavily into value stocks and fairly heavily weighted in bonds and real estate. So your portfolio was moderately risky. Fine. What's wrong with little or no risk? Nothing. In fact there is nothing wrong with a lot of risk. The ony problem I have is someone taking unnecessary risk. I trade futures and I don't take unnecessary risks.
I believe that's true.
I disagree with a substantial portion of what Neal Boortz explains in this piece. THERE IS A FREE LUNCH IN THE FAIR TAX ACT! The free lunch comes from ridding our tax system of the tremendous inefficiency of the income tax. That inefficiency costs about 90% of the $300+ Billion per year expended by Americans for compliance with the tax system as it now exists. THE FREE LUNCH WILL AMOUNT TO THE ECONOMIC EQUIVALENT OF $250 BILLION/YEAR IN TAX CUTS - THE LARGEST AND MOST BENEFICIAL TAX CUT IN HISTORY - SIMPLY BY THROWING OUT THE STUPIDITY OF EXTREME WASTE OF MANPOWER REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE PRESENT TAX SYSTEM. That will enable a net gain in the economic growth rate not less than 1-2% per year, which will be sufficient to pay the costs of Social Security reform and more.
All the quibbling over exactly what happens to the repealed income and payroll taxes (whether they go back on the paycheck - which I think they will do in 90% of cases) or are recaptured by the employer through negotiated salary reductions does not amount to a hill of beans. Let's keep our attention on the big picture, which is MORE than enough to justify entirely adoption of the Fair Tax Act of 2005 as real tax reform.
Good post, n-tres-ted. Right on target!
A lot of people don't see that at all apparently.
And that was his point. Eating, drinking and staying warm is where you pay sales tax and is less voluntary than earning income.
I think that is absolutely correct and when you add in "As you point out, according to at least some of the NRSTers, taxing one's income is inherently immoral. Yet, taxing one's spending is not."(site test to always right) you find even MORE confirmation of it!
Failure to comprehend THAT issue says all that need be said as far as I am concerned!
Umm, it is not the fair taxers who use the 'fairness' rhetoric? The whole way the fair tax is spun and marketed is right out of liberal focus grouping sprinkled with a bunch of overpromises.
Well then both you and he are throwing out one of the main features of the fair tax. Food water and warmth are the only three things humans must have to survive. Those can normally be paid for completely tax free under the FT. But they aren't free from any cost at all. One must make some income to acquire them. That isn't voluntary. Making income now costs tax money or at least SS/medicare.
The point is, for a large portion of our population they spend every penny they earn and they don't consider any of their spending as discresionary. Almost all of it goes for food, clothing, car, housing, and rent, with a modest amount left over for cable TV, utlities, phones, etc. Most of this spending really falls into the 'involuntary' category unless you think it is reasonable for people to live like the unabomber. From that extreme viewpoint, I guess some of those bills could be considered voluntary. I don't think 99% of people consider those types of expenditures voluntary.
Also, for the truly needy, the ones they claim concern about, there are still the government "safety net" programs which provide all that. With those things provided, the prebate then becomes spending money. Spending money expose itself the the NRST, broadening the tax base.
Your post #340 is not worthy of comment because it is nothing more than an" accuse the opposition" argument. The fair taxers have a wealth of information, links, economists, rebuttals on and on. Yet you call it propaganda and you expect to be taken seriously. Well I for one hereby point out your hypocrisy and hope everyone else notices it too.
The 'wealth' of information is all one-sided spin. That is not a source of objective information.. It has been carefully crafted to present the fair tax in the best light possible. In many cases it leaves out important details. Propaganda is a more accurate discription than a 'wealth of information'.
As you have pointed out over and over. OTOH, you and your anti's (Notice I didn't say Status Quo Lovers, wouldn't want to start an insult war) have very little in the way of ideas or positive input. I'm really beginning to see what some of the other Fair taxers have been trying to tell me: you guys don't want to add anything you just want to disrupt.
Whatever happened to YN's VAT? Was that thoroughly discredited or is it still on the table?
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.