Posted on 10/12/2005 8:39:34 AM PDT by pigdog
TAX REFORM COMMISSION? YEAH ... RIGHT.
The president's so-called tax reform commission telegraphed its intentions several months ago when members stated that they were not going to recommend a full reform of our federal tax system, rather they were going to recommend some incremental reforms. The The FairTax Book hit the book stores and debuted at No. 1 on the New York Times Bestseller's list. Politicians and other Beltway denizens told co-author Congressman John Linder that the success of The FairTax Book was a certain indication that the people of this country were in the mood for wholesale reform. Who knew?
Now we're starting to get an indication of what the tax reform commission is going to recommend. It's very simple. Tax increases, not tax reform.
(Excerpt) Read more at boortz.com ...
Great Nightie. Which do you support (and please don't give us another one which is not yet before congress and can't be viewed) and how does it eliminate all present income tax laws?
I wasn't talking about his moivation, but the content of his observations about the flat tax. You might read them.I have read them (that link has only be posted by you and AG about 100 times) and I'm not impressed. The guy's obviously married to the current system. Like I said, a Flat Tax would put him out of business.
I thought you were just trying a few posts earlier to fool us into believing that the flat tax bill you support removes any taxes on income. If that's so, why should it need to replace the current code if by simple modification as you've claimed it can create the same result?
Something's fishy in Denmark (and in your postings).
That's less than the 36.9% marginal rate now, which the truely wealthy never pay anyway. I bet it will be a wash anyway because there is already a large number of people from waiters to daycare providers to drug dealers who don't pay income taxes now, but will still have to buy a new car or new house or go to Walmart and pay the tax. But a stronger argument is, so what? I should be concerned about that? How about the pressure that will but put on goverment to cut back? This IS about showing people how much government costs.
Nor can make a definitive statement that a wage tax taxes less income than the FairTax since the FairTax does not tax any income at all - only consumption.And where do people get the money for consumption? Income. The FairTax just taxes income spent at retail (and a person doesn't necessarily consume everything they purchase at retail so it's no a pure consumption tax - but this is probably beyond your understanding).
You'd be surprised to see the Comments being sent to the Tax Panel about their cop-out. The people "get it". The Panel doesn't.
Check this thread for a sample of actual postings covering only (part of) one days comments after the Panels pronouncements:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1501413/posts?page=1
You'll see that there are plenty who are unhappy about it. And the Panel is so slow to post new Comments that their website is bogged down.
Those are just one year rates, Nightie. I specifically asked for a 10 year window (which you're fond of pointing out that tax scoring is done by). You seem unable to provide that.Because most (of not all) of those countries haven't had a Flat Tax for 10 years. But you know that so you formulate a question that can't be answered in a lame effort to taint the incredible results these countries have had with the Flat Tax.
Income-based taxes also contain cascading embedded tax costs as has been shown many times on these threads.No it hasn't. You've just posted the same flawed, mis-interpreted table several times.
Great Nightie. Which do you support (and please don't give us another one which is not yet before congress and can't be viewed) and how does it eliminate all present income tax laws?I don't support any of them. But S1099 is before congress and can be view on Thomas.
I thought you were just trying a few posts earlier to fool us into believing that the flat tax bill you support removes any taxes on income. If that's so, why should it need to replace the current code if by simple modification as you've claimed it can create the same result?Huh? You're babbling again. Up your meds.
What do you think self employed people have to do now? If I get a commission check, I need to set aside at least 30% now to pay self employement and federal and state income taxes. The incentive to evade is already there. That is why many people (not including me of course) exaggerate expenses or try to take cash. It will be harder to evade the sales tax than under our current system. I spend most of my money on utilities, food and cars. Am I going to go to some back ally to buy eggs and milk? How about electricity and gas - from someone's trunk in a parking lot? With big retailers doing most of the business, collection of sales taxes from thousands will be easier than collecting income tax from millions.
TYVM - my error ... got it now.
Does this mean that you support this flat tax or is this merely another of your misdirection games? If you don't support it, it seems hardly worth wasting time on since it still retains payroll & withholding taxes.
Your post was unclear as to what it meant and certainly did not indicate the Panel's work to me.
Sorry if you felt insulted ... perhaps a more explicit post would held get across your intent. The Panel's "rejection" isn't going to have any real influence in the longer term.
You're still griping about his motivation. It's the content of his remarks (whether they "impress" you or not is hardly the point) that is telling about the difficulties with the flat tax.
Oh, but the FairTax IS a pure consumption tax as it is only taxable things purchased at retail that are taxed.
With the flat tax which, presumably, is the one you support since you offer it as an example (or, perhaps, more mere trickery on your part), it is NOT just wages that are taxed. Perhaps you should read your own bill.
You can't seem to grasp that there is no FairTax country presently, but at the end of the first year's operation of the FairTax, I'd be glad to post the results.
If your "flat tax wonders" have such a wonderful history why not show their 10 year window instead of just a selected 1 year window. While you're at it, post the inflation rates in those countries corresponding to the wonder years you post so we can get a hnt of how much is due to inflation.
The fact you can't understand embedded tax costs that cascade does not mean much. Most people grasp the concept readily enough - even without the examples and explanation of how the cascading works.
OK - so now we know that this is merely one more of your misdirections to lead people down a dead-end while you snicker.
Stick it in your ear, pal. Flat taxes aren't even revenue neutral and don't make any significant change to the existing tax code.
You're really just back to your Nightmare Flat Tax. And that proved to be a useless effort long ago.
You are truly bereft of any sense at all.
We can now see that Nightie is back to his disruptive troll tactics to try to deflect attention from the FairTax.
Those of you who have been on earlier threads will recognize his Nightmare Flat Tax for what it is - nothing at all except a method of deflection.
Once a Squirrel always a Squirrel.
Nah... getting too hard to tell which is "lesser". I'd prefer to not have to vote for "evil" at all...
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.