Posted on 10/17/2005 6:05:06 PM PDT by pigdog
That means you've got is bassackwards, dufus.
As has been pointed out to you many times, Nightie, it is not "a wash" (one of your favorite terms attempting to belittle or minimize actual FairTax advantages).You've made the same "point" over and over. It's still wrong - as most of your "points" are. Your average is well below the Mendoza Line.
"is" = "it".
It's not that you're "not for" the FairTax, but that you use such a series of outrageous liesName one.
It's your "wash" nonsense it what is wrong, Nightie. It is not a wash at all - and you know it as you've been shown by many posters.
Your average is pretty much a great big zero on a scale of 1 to 10.
You seem to forget there was one thread a few weeks ago where you had eleven lies pointed out to you on that single thread.
If your mental facilities are that leaky it's no wonder you defend the Status Quo by trying to preserve it in attacking the FairTax.
You seem to forget there was one thread a few weeks ago where you had eleven lies pointed out to you on that single thread.Actually, there were zero. But the truth never mattered when the FairTax was concerned, did it pigdogma?
As an example on that thread, you presented a number for Transitional Inventory Credit that was, in fact, some 411% too large and this was pointed out to you since you managed (just barely) the former error-holder (at 400%) Looey.
It is clear that 400 plus percent is way too large to be accidental ... it was ONE of the 11 lies which you now claim are zero (that zero is another lie, BTW). You just can't seem to cut your losses and stop the lies.
As an example on that thread, you presented a number for Transitional Inventory Credit that was, in fact, some 411% too large and this was pointed out to you since you managed (just barely) the former error-holder (at 400%) Looey.BS. Show the thread, liar.
When before their customers were and with the FairTax wouldn't be on their purchase. The current system gets it going into the underground economy - a sales tax would get it coming out. Again, a wash.
Why does it escape you that when drug dealers (in this example) begin paying their full burden of taxes, that means others no longer have to pay it for them?
That it's a wash has never been under dispute. The point being made (that you always ignore) is that the the drug dealer would pay his own taxes - instead of them being paid by someone else.
See, if more people paid taxes (like drug dealers, illegals, tourists, importers), all of us who have been paying their taxes for them wouldn't have to anymore.
When before their customers were and with the FairTax wouldn't be on their purchase. The current system gets it going into the underground economy - a sales tax would get it coming out. Again, a wash.
Why does it escape you that when drug dealers (in this example) begin paying their full burden of taxes, that means others no longer have to pay it for them?
That it's a wash has never been under dispute. The point being made (that you always ignore) is that the the drug dealer would pay his own taxes - instead of them being paid by someone else. See, if more people paid taxes (like drug dealers, illegals, tourists, importers), all of us who have been paying their taxes for them wouldn't have to anymore.
But the truth never mattered when the INcome Tax was concerned, did it your nightmare?
That it's a wash has never been under dispute.Pigdog disputes it.
The point being made (that you always ignore) is that the the drug dealer would pay his own taxes - instead of them being paid by someone else.So with the FairTax, the drug dealer pays the tax for the drug buyer where now the buyer pays it for the dealer. What's the difference? They are both criminals and under both systems one pays and the other doesn't.
See, if more people paid taxes (like drug dealers, illegals, tourists, importers), all of us who have been paying their taxes for them wouldn't have to anymore.Well, now you're talking like it's not a wash.
One never knows your definition of words... a "wash" to me means the same amount of tax is collected in the aggregate.
IMO that is the case.
The difference I see is that the taxes collected would be collected from a higher number of payers.
eg I no longer have to pay higher taxes to help cover the taxes that aren't being paid by some others...illegals, tourists, importers, criminals.
The number of illegals is how many millions? What if every one of them paid the maximum marginal rate? How much tourist $ is spent in the US? What if it 20% (or whatever the rate ends up being) of it helped pay for government? What if 20% of the price of everything we imported went to pay for government? How much would that reduce the burden of the typical US citizen?
Yeah the amount collected in the aggregate stays constant (revenue neutral), but from more sources. Hence my burden may decrease.
So now, it seems, we'll be treated to the Squirrel tactic of pretending something that happened never happened unless he is shown the actual thread ... and when he'll then try to make the claim that it wasn't a lie; that it wasn't what he was talking about; yadda, yadda, yadda!
Go find it yourself, pal. It's clearly there and you know it. We had a long discussion about it. I'll not waste more time on your diversionary BS or attempts to cover up your lies.
It has been clearly demonstrated several times that in a given purchase instance (and not overall as Principled means it) the FairTax collects a greater tax revenue from illegal income spent on a $100 sale at $23 than the same $100 of illegal income spent of a sale under the present tax system where it would yield something like $3.75.
That means, as Principled points out that the person using the illegal income to purchase things under the FairTax will be paying - for a change - a representative portion of his tax burden where with the $3.75 tax payment others must bear a good part of his tax burden.
I believe what Principled means is that with revenue neutrality the total collected is the same ... that does not mean the one with the illegal income is bearing his own tax burden at present (regardless of who pays it, it is less under the income tax as has been shown) where other taxpayers must make up the difference.
In fact, under tha FairTax, the "contribution" from the illegal income sector will be so great that the tax rate can be decreased quite soon.
In any given year there are about 50 million foreign tourists (and this doesn't count Canada and Mexico), so let's see if each one spend, say, $1,000 that would represent over $11 Billion in FairTax revenue. Adding Canada and Mexico would bump those numbers even more dramatically I'd think.
IAE it would be a reduction of the tax burden of each US citizen by that much and it's interesting to note that this (excluding Canada and Mexico) at least equals the 2006 budget for the IRS.
So now, it seems, we'll be treated to the Squirrel tactic of pretending something that happened never happened unless he is shown the actual thread ... and when he'll then try to make the claim that it wasn't a lie; that it wasn't what he was talking about; yadda, yadda, yadda! Go find it yourself, pal. It's clearly there and you know it. We had a long discussion about it. I'll not waste more time on your diversionary BS or attempts to cover up your lies.And now we see the classic FairTax kook tactic. Make a claim (usually that someone lied) and when asked to prove it, say something like "I'll not waste more time on your diversionary BS or attempts to cover up your lies."
It has been clearly demonstrated several times that in a given purchase instanceIt has not been "clearly demonstrated." You tried with one of your simplistic, ignorant illustrations but, as usual, you failed miserably. But, with you, any moronic reply you make seems to answer the question in your warped little head - regardless of how illogical and irrational that reply is.
In any given year there are about 50 million foreign tourists (and this doesn't count Canada and Mexico), so let's see if each one spend, say, $1,000 that would represent over $11 Billion in FairTax revenue. Adding Canada and Mexico would bump those numbers even more dramatically I'd think. IAE it would be a reduction of the tax burden of each US citizen by that much and it's interesting to note that this (excluding Canada and Mexico) at least equals the 2006 budget for the IRS.Why do you have to make stuff up? (Oh, right - because you are a FairTaxer.) You could just go to the NIPA tables and see that in 2004 there was a total of $98.6 billion in foreign travel and expenditures by U.S. residents and there was a total of $96.6 billion in expenditures in the U.S. by nonresidents. The revenue gained by taxing foreign tourist's consumption is lost by not taxing U.S. tourist's income.
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.