Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The FairTax and it's Implications for the U.S. Economy (Part II of Income Tax)
OpinionEditorials.com ^ | December 05, 2005 | Chris Liakos

Posted on 12/05/2005 2:36:33 PM PST by Eaglewatcher

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 581-592 next last
To: Your Nightmare

Read the bill, Nightie - what you seek is described there.


221 posted on 12/06/2005 10:24:46 AM PST by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: Always Right; Sprite518

Don't waste your breath, Sprite. He has never once admitted to an error despite haveing many pointed out to him. That's also a characteristic of the SQL Squad.


222 posted on 12/06/2005 10:26:50 AM PST by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: pigdog
ok, now i'm in awe. (i being one who wouldn't mind a nrst if it was done more honesly.)

A SALES TAX (the ST part of NRST) is: A tax levied on the retail price of merchandise!!

just admit that as a part of 'fair'tax webster's defintion of SALES TAX has to be modified -- then we can all get along.

my biggest problem with 'fair'tax is that more effort is wasted on fr discussion threads about the terminology (because of its label, because of its attempt to change the meaning of words, and because of its fuzzy math examples) that the real implications can not be coherently discussed and lobbied for (or against).

223 posted on 12/06/2005 10:28:38 AM PST by kpp_kpp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Goddess
The FairTax doesn't change the benefit calculation...only the way the benefits are funded. AND because Congress has spent all of the money previously withheld, it is absolutely essential to sever the link between earned income and the funding stream. If we don't, we'll tax the productive sector to death....that's the reality.
So we do this by taking money from people who won't get the benefits of the program. Nice... and socialistic.
224 posted on 12/06/2005 10:33:26 AM PST by Your Nightmare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio

Your attempt at some sort of static look at embedded taxes is incorrect since you include the payroll/withholding taxes that are not part of the cascading embedded tax picture. Those costs will remain under the FairTax so trying to claim they are embedded is not realistic.

Assuming some sort of breakdowwn as you do is also not realistic. I've showed you an example of how taxes cascade from one level to the next and become embedded into prices. This is not at all the same thing as the amount of income tax a given business pays, but is a part of tax costs passed to the next level and multiplying as they do so. that's a different animal that your assumed breakdown of a single situation.

We've been tropugh this before and yet is is quite obvious that you do not understand what cascading embedded taxes are nor how they work. The examples you cite have little or nothing to do with hidden taxes. I suggest you read #217.


225 posted on 12/06/2005 10:37:33 AM PST by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: Your Nightmare

If you're bothered by having all that savings and investments, why not send it to JimRob???


226 posted on 12/06/2005 10:39:22 AM PST by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: pigdog; RobFromGa; Sprite518
No, Nightie, he wasn't being dishonest --- YOU were. The poster said in his original comment that these were Rob's words, not those of the authors.
Riiiight! When sprite518 told RobFromGa "Why do you always have to be so dishonest when it comes to the Fair Tax Debate? Please tell me where in the Fair Tax book does it say it's a 'Free Lunch'? Those are your words not Linder and Boortz." he wasn't saying that RobFromGa claimed The FairTax Book said the FairTax was a "free lunch." Gotcha!{wink}{wink}

You FairTaxers are such a joke. It's really comical.
227 posted on 12/06/2005 10:39:53 AM PST by Your Nightmare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: Your Nightmare

The FairTax doesn't change the fundamental nature of the beast. Social Security is and always has been socialistic. Moreover, the FairTax does not change the way benefits are calculated. Benefits have always accrued on the basis of earned income, not unearned income.

As I see it, we have roughly three choices:

1. Continue the program as is, taxing the productive sector into oblivion.

2. Continue the program as is, taxing all via a consumption tax.

3. Tell the American people the truth about the Ponzi-scheme and severely reduce expected benefits.

It appears that NO ONE is willing to tell the American people the truth. It seems really stupid to tax our productive sector into oblivion, so severing the link between earnigns and the funding stream appears to be the only viable alternative.

Were I crowned Queen, I would put an end to the program, decree that all babies born after a date certain would be ineligible for blanket benefits. That would circumscribe the beneficiary pool, and halt the runaway train. I would permit IRA's to be opened for each and every newborn born after the date certain, to be funded voluntarily by parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, God parents, etc. We could then start a dialog on how best to deal with the existing pool of people who expect benefits. Remember, the net present value of the unfunded liability exceeds the net worth of the country. Congress has spent and continues to spend the surplus now generated. This is not going to be a painless thing to fix.

I'm just the messenger, the bearer of the unvarnished truth.

If you have a better plan, I'm all ears.


228 posted on 12/06/2005 11:16:32 AM PST by Conservative Goddess (Politiae legibus, non leges politiis, adaptandae)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

No, the FairTax is revenue neutral including the prebate funds. And the prebate is not an allowance, but a rebate of some of your tax money in advance. Nor is it an enitlement.

Not everyday will be tax day - but only those on which you buy something taxable. In addition, there is no extra work on the part of the taxpayer in filling out forms, etc. as with the present system ... it's a whole lot less painful and there is no need to prove your innocence as a taxpayer; indeed no interaction at all with the taxing authority.

In fact, there will probably be very few checks issued since the goivernment typically issues S/S payments wia wire transfer directly to bank accounts.


229 posted on 12/06/2005 11:26:50 AM PST by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: Your Nightmare

Nigntie, Nightie ... you're hopelessly ignorant.


230 posted on 12/06/2005 11:27:54 AM PST by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

OK, and you remain unknowledegeable about hidden taxes.


231 posted on 12/06/2005 11:29:53 AM PST by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: kpp_kpp

Where is it you think you see someone trying to change the meaning of those two terms???


232 posted on 12/06/2005 11:30:34 AM PST by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: kpp_kpp

And THAT'S Bovine Scatology (B.S.). It was related at least twice that I can think of in this post as to how the name originated.

You Squirrels carping about the name of something merely shows how your arguments have degenerated into nothingness.

How about calling it the "kpp_kpp_kpp_kpp" tax instead???


233 posted on 12/06/2005 11:34:19 AM PST by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio

And it has been clear from your postss on several threads now that you do not understand what embedded, cascading taxes are nor how they umple through he production/distribution chain.

You "estimations" of embedded taxes are not at all that but are merely what you think a static tax amount might be at a single level of the chain. That's not what hidden taxes are nor how they come about. Read #217 more thoroughly to begin to understand.


234 posted on 12/06/2005 11:40:02 AM PST by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: kpp_kpp

Is it 'fair' that all wage earners pay higher tax burdens to help pay your medical expenses?

Is it 'fair' that others pay a greater burden so you can have he benefits of enjoying those little cherubs - escecially when some of those taxpayers will remain childless forever (and not by choice).

Is it 'fair' that I spend X dollars raising a child and that child is killed or maimed in a terrorist attack by some religious fanatic (or has his family and his entire city destroyed)? (Your "paying nothing in comparison with no children" makes no sense so I've ignored it).

You're speaking about life,not the FairTax. Life isn't fair, the FairTax is in that everyone pays taxes at the same tax rate. No one is given preferred tax treatment.

Once again, though, you've missed how the name originated.


235 posted on 12/06/2005 11:49:20 AM PST by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: kpp_kpp
The definition of the term needn't be modified at all. the tax is stated wither as T.I. or T.E. depending on he usaage. Neither is "incorrect" and both describe the same amount of tax. Some definitions of the term even say that is is usually calculated as a percentage of the purchase price. That allows either description of the tax; some merely wish to define it as a single method of interpretation so they can claim "lie, lie, lie" repeatedly. It is no lie and there is no fuzzy math that results if either way is correctly used.

They both describe the same amount of taxz. What is it you misunderstand about that?

236 posted on 12/06/2005 12:04:37 PM PST by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: pigdog
the thread goes back to the comment about those who "refuse to acknowledge the usefulness and utility of the 23% inclusive rate"

all i'm saying is an income tax is levied AGAINST the income BY DEFINITION and a sales tax is levied ON the retail price of the merchandise BY DEFINITION.

to say "inclusive sales tax rate" is both doublespeak and doublethink -- all i mean by that is an attempt to change the commonly accepted definition.

i don't have a problem with saying the rate is 23% in comparison to an income tax. i don't even necessarily have a problem with the rate being a 30% SALES TAX (although promoters of 'fair'tax seem to abhor/avoid-if-possible that fact).

but it is a silly attempt at deception to try and show sales receipts as having line item showing a 23% tax rate.

Sales Tax (Dictionary.com, Amer Her): A tax levied on the retail price of merchandise and collected by the retailer.

Sales Tax (m-w.com): a tax levied on the sale of goods and services that is usually calculated as a percentage of the purchase price and collected by the seller

Sales Tax (Cambridge Dictionary of American English): is tax on things people buy in stores

Sales Tax (encarta.msn.com): a tax on retail merchandise that is levied by the federal, state, or local government and collected at the point of sale by the retailer

Sales Tax (www.wordsmyth.net): a tax on retail sales, usu. set at a fixed percentage of the sale price and paid by the consumer.

237 posted on 12/06/2005 12:10:56 PM PST by kpp_kpp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: pigdog

i don't care if they call it Might Be More Fair Tax, National Sales Tax, Pay Your Gov Dues Tax, Give Me Your Cash Tax, but 'fair'tax is doublespeak regardless of its original intentions. my opinion, i'm entitled to it, it doesn't change any of my other questions or points, end of subject.

regarding "that's life" -- sure it is, but i'm not talking about the expenses themselves, i'm talking about the taxes on them as a way of funding our government in light of the word 'fair'.


238 posted on 12/06/2005 12:16:37 PM PST by kpp_kpp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: pigdog
And it has been clear from your postss on several threads now that you do not understand what embedded, cascading taxes are nor how they umple through he production/distribution chain.

I understand them. I just reject your extremely high estimate of their figures. Business profits are about 10% of the economy. Taxes on those profits are about 2% of the economy. Unless you are saying that tax compliance costs are 20% of the economy (full time work for 30 million people), you have to find other costs to get to a 22% embedded tax.

If the average $100 item has $22 of embedded tax, how much of that is business tax, how much is compliance cost, how much is employment related tax and how much is something else?

239 posted on 12/06/2005 12:21:12 PM PST by KarlInOhio (In memory of Alvin Owen, Thsai-Shai Yang, Yen-I Yang and Yee Chen Lin:the victims of Tookie Williams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: pigdog

this whole argument is pointless considering i prefer neither.

it gets funny now considering my preference is for "inclusive", just not the way 'fair'tax proposes. my preference for a national sales tax would be to have it HIDDEN like the gas taxes are today. you pay the posted price, period. state+fed included. if you want to show the tax amount, fine put it in fine print at the bottom of the receipt - you can tell how much went to fed, how much went to state, how much went to soc security, etc. and in that fashion it makes perfect sense to show it at the inclusive rate -- you are showing the % of the total payment that went to the various departments. my only point is that if a gal of milk is going to cost you $2.49 the just post the price as $2.49 not as a $1.77 (+ 30% Fed, 8% State sales taxes).


240 posted on 12/06/2005 12:32:09 PM PST by kpp_kpp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 581-592 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson