Posted on 12/05/2005 2:36:33 PM PST by Eaglewatcher
the thread goes back to the comment about those who "refuse to acknowledge the usefulness and utility of the 23% inclusive rate"The FairTax is doubleplusgood!
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.No, but you are changing where the money is coming from. Currently, it comes exclusively from wages and salaries - where the benefits are calculated. You want to have saving and investment income taxed and a large portion go to Social Security. Someone with a large portion of their income from savings and investment would pay the same but get less than someone making the same amount through wages or salary.
So, let's see Nightie, you'd rather see all of the funding run ou for everyone so no one gets any financial help despite the lgal requirements???
How socialistic of you.
So, let's see Nightie, you'd rather see all of the funding run ou [sic] for everyone so no one gets any financial help despite the lgal [sic] requirements??? How socialistic of you.I don't want the funding to run out but how would that be socialistic? You want to take money from people with a lot of investment and savings income and give it to people with less. That's socialistic.
Yes....and that is an absolute necessity to keeping the benefits flowing. No one is willing to tell the truth about the system. They've used disingenous means to keep it afloat for years. We are coming to the end of the line...the point at which the whole ponzi scheme is about to come un-glued. If an annuity salesman did what the Federal Government has done, he'd be locked up as a felon, a thief.
I didn't see any mention of an alternative plan in your post. I repeat, if you have a better idea, I'm all ears.
"... The FairTax is built on false premises of a FREE LUNCH ..."
... and that's exactly what was being stated by Sprite518. You guys are such a pathetic joke you can't even lie responsibly (wink, wink).
Take a gander at this:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/bg1897.cfm
Then, if you have a better plan, I'd really like to hear it.
You seem unable to comprehend that NONE of the definitions you posted (one of which I had already given) perclude the sales tax as being defined either as exclusive or inclusive.
That's the touble with you SQL Squad members. You thing it must be only a single way ... your way. Not one of those 5 definitions says it must be either exclusive or inclusive.
And don't go all "Looey-like" claiming that certain prepositions mean only certain things. That's truly nonsense and won't take you very far. The inclusive rate is the way the tax is defined in the bill and the way the receipt required is defined. Trying to warp that into some sort of "doublespeak" or "doublethink" is indeed doublespeak/think on your part.
Those definitions can mean either thing and you seem to not realize that. Show me where one of the 5 defines the tax as being exclusive (or inclusive) of tax. In fact, it can be either but you merely prefer to consider it only a single way for your own reasons. The FairTax website used it both ways and so trying to make that claim is erroneous also.
Yes....and that is an absolute necessity to keeping the benefits flowing.So your solution is to take from some to keep the "benefits flowing" to others. Socialism, plain and simple.
(a) i believe i said "commonly accepted definition" -- go poll a thousand people (heck, just do 10 people) and see what they understand "sales tax" to be. it is in my 6th grader's math book: a shirt cost $15. the sales tax is $4.50. what is the sales tax rate? (i'm not making this up)
(b) all of the definitions gave, as part of the definition, what i stated as being commonly accepted -- not one of them gave 'inclusive' as part of the definition. it is not the commonly accepted definiton. there is no nonsense about.
Paying taxes on consumption makes no judgement whether it is 'good', 'bad', 'fair', or 'unfair' - nor should it. The "kpp_kpp_kpp_kpp" Tax is just that - a tax to raise revenue for the government - it takes no notice of your social circumstances ... and that's quite a good change from the present system which pretends to be the Mother's Milk of Happenstance throwing funds out willy-nilly. There's nothing 'fair' about that, either.
"You first have to show me where I am wrong."
Are you agreeing to change your name if we show you where you are wrong?
What is your alternative plan?
None of the alternatives are palatable. The system is insolvent by any standard or creative definition of the word.
The Heritage Foundation Report includes this: "In 2017, when Social Security starts calling for its money back, the Treasury will be able to repay the debt only by collecting that amount in new taxes. In other words, the taxpayers, not some vague government entity, will have to repay the $5.7 trillion to the trust fund to keep the system running until 2041.[11]
In that sense, the Social Security trust fund does not save taxpayers a dime. It is merely an accounting device: a running tally of the amount of the Social Security surplus that Congress has spent and that future taxpayers will have to repay to fund all benefits until 2041. Each year’s Social Security benefits will continue to be funded by current taxpayers. There is no mountain of money waiting to be tapped."
What is your solution?
we both agree the word 'fair' is subjective. whew. excellent. :-)
So your solution is to shut down S/S completely??? Fine idea AFAIC so long as you can get enough of those currently on the dole to agree.
While you're at it, why don't you also trash M/C, too. Getting rid of both would save all kinds of tax money though that, of course, can't be done in a tax bill since it is a spending measure.
Both together would drop the FairTax from 23% down to something in the range of 10% to a bit under 15% (both, of course, are t.i. so you won't need to launch that tirade).
how is paying out social security based on earned income ok when the amount paid into it is not based on earned income? at that point why not just pay out equally like the prebate does? the prebate doesn't factor in earned income and thus gives low income earners a much higher refund rate than high income earners -- if it is ok for families then why not do the same for seniors?
there must be some other way.
go poll a thousand people (heck, just do 10 people)
People naturally use both terms-- inclusive and exclusive. Thus they easily grasp the differences and similarities.
Ask any person what percentage of their income they paid in federal tax and they will give you the tax inclusive percentage. Ask a person how much of their income went to paying taxes under the FairTax and they will give you the tax inclusive percentage.
Ask any person how much tax they paid on the shirt they bought and they'll give you the tax exclusive percentage.
What is your solution?Cut payouts and cut spending (we've been spending the "trust fund" for too long) and allow people to divert some of their OASI tax into personal accounts. But to divert money into personal accounts, you have to know how much somebody is paying in OASI tax (you wouldn't with the FairTax). We also need to repeal the Medicare drug plan.
right. good we agree. i stated such in post 212
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1534505/posts?page=212#212
Ask any person how much tax they paid on the shirt they bought and they'll give you the tax exclusive percentage.Ask any person how much a 23% sales tax on that shirt would be they will give you the amount using the 23% as an exclusive rate, not inclusive. That's where the deception comes in.
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.