Posted on 12/11/2005 6:50:49 PM PST by Your Nightmare
You shouldn't make fun of AA. It has worked for many who needed it; which I never have.
What kind of a person takes a bus as salary, EV? Heck, what kind of a person lives out of a bus? Is that really all your supposed vaunted campaign work is worth?
So, if I say that EVERYTHING I buy ( outside of food and services ) is an investment, then I won't pay any taxes on any of it under the FT?
If you just "say" it no.
If the purchase/investment meets the legislative qualifications for exemption you will not pay the NRST implemented under HR25 on it.
That gives everyone a pretty HUGE loophole right there and you don't even see it. Oh, no, wait a minute, what it does, *hehehehehehehe*, is to give those with lots of nice disposable income a HUGE tax break!
Since income is not taxed, only expenditure on consumption. there is no loophole. One
Get your head out of the income tax box you have placed it in.
Investment and savings are not consumption that is to be taxed under a National Retail Sales Tax.
The purchase of consumer goods and services is taxed under a consumption tax sytem. Not income and not investment or savings of an individual only that which is applied to consumptions.
All consumer goods and services are to be taxed once but only once under the FairTax system., Quite unlike the income tax and VATs which tax the same thing repeatedly throughout a production chain and hide much of the tax burden from the view of the electorate, the main failing of such tax systems.
If the voter does not perceive the burden placed on him by government as being from government, how can he exercise his voting responsibility in a knowing and informed manner? Indeed how can one begin to expect an level of accountablility of government to the citizen in fiscal matters under such disability?
The obvious answer to such as state, is obviously the citizen who is held unaware of the cost of govenment cannot appropriately assess value nor hold government accountable in an reasonable sense.
The Intent of the individual income tax is for political and social control not revenue collection. The Individual Income tax is maintained to establish and hold every person in the country perpetual legal jeopardy. That is a situation that must end with the repeal of the income tax from the statutes, and the prohibition of its use by Constitutional amendment that future generations will not face the same manner of manipulation and interference in their lives.
If we expect to see control of government spending, we had best look to make the burden visible to the whole of the electorate, not just the few designated as the token guy behind the tree.
That is one of the bottomline purposes of going to the NRST, make the cost of largess perceptible to the entire electorate, even the lowest most rungs of the economic ladder.
You've been hanging out with the antifreepers and listening to their stupid inventions and speculations again, I see.
I think you protest a bit too much on the AA thing, but that's just me.
So in other words "investment" is whether the legislature says it is. Tuition can be an investment, children can be an investment, housing can be an investment, giving to charity can be considered an investment if Congress wished.
That doesn't sound like deductions/credits based on social concerns to you?
I will say, your posts are much easier to read since they installed spellcheck. Your phrasing and syntax and wandering trains of thought still leave me wondering alot, but the fact that you now know how to capitalize letters is a big improvement!You may want to start using that spell checker because "spellcheck" should be "spell check" and "alot" should be "a lot."
So in other words "investment" is whether the legislature says it is.
Its a consumption tax. Investment is not consumption.
Tuition can be an investment, children can be an investment, housing can be an investment, giving to charity can be considered an investment if Congress wished.
That doesn't sound like deductions/credits based on social concerns to you?
You tell me, is education an investment? Is puchase of stocks or bonds an investment under the legislation? Of course both are. Are children taxable property anymore than you are? You figure children should pay more taxes than an adult?
Since none of the above is consumption, and the FairTax is on use or consumption of taxable property and services, not investment or savings or people regardless of age/ I would not call those social concern but rational distinctions defining the the tax base, (i.e. use or consumption of taxable property and services.)
Well YN, at least I know the difference between taxing and spending, between tax refunds and welfare; unlike the writer of this lying screed you posted.
Well YN, at least I know the difference between taxing and spending, between tax refunds and welfare; unlike the writer of this lying screed you posted.Really? So the government sending every legal resident in the country a check regardless of whether they paid a cent in taxes (which should be easy since it is a "voluntary" tax) is a "refund"?
The fact remains that the vast majority of Americans will simply be receiving back what they paid in up to the poverty line.
If someone manages to live on less, God bless em. They're the beneficiaries of the public interest of keeping the new tax system simple and uninvasive of the citizen's private business.
As usual, you're straining out the gnat and swallowing camels.
The fact remains that the vast majority of Americans will simply be receiving back what they paid in up to the poverty line.And the vast majority of Americans will simply be receiving back from Social Security what they paid into it. I guess that's a "refund," too.
Your abilites to obfuscate are impressive, but as always, utterly unpersuasive.
Your abilites to obfuscate are impressive, but as always, utterly unpersuasive.Right. Being against a plan that sets up the largest entitlement program in the history of this country is "obfuscation." Gotcha.
My typo, next to your inability to do anything but shill for the IRS, seems rather a small thing, don't you think?
You're obsessed with attacking the FairTax. You do nothing else on FR.
Makes a guy wonder about your motives.
In your world, keeping your own money is an 'entitlement program'?
*rolling eyes*
My typo, next to your inability to do anything but shill for the IRS, seems rather a small thing, don't you think?Maybe next time you will pause before critizing the spelling of others. And when have I ever "shilled" for the IRS.
You're obsessed with attacking the FairTax. You do nothing else on FR. Makes a guy wonder about your motives.My motives are making sure the POS plan never gets implemented for no other reason than it would be a disaster for this country.
You shill for the IRS constantly.
Seems to be your only reason for being here.
In your world, keeping your own money is an 'entitlement program'? *rolling eyes*If it allows a person to keep more than their own money it's an entitlement program. When you finally get your dictionary, see if it has "entitlement program" listed.
You shill for the IRS constantly.Give me one example of me "shilling" for the IRS. Pointing out the flaws is not "shilling" for the IRS.
Like I said, straining out gnats and swallowing camels.
The overwhelming majority of Americans will not receive more than they paid in.
The few who will are a small price to pay for simplicity and noninvasiveness.
Of course, you can't afford to acknowledge that, since to do so would undermine your longstanding defense of the IRS and the income tax.
Defending the status quo = "shilling for the IRS"
Duh...
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.