Posted on 12/11/2005 6:50:49 PM PST by Your Nightmare
Defending the status quo = "shilling for the IRS"And in Fairtaxspeak, being against the FairTax is "defending the status quo."
Considering the twisted lying inherent in the piece you posted to start this thread, I would say it is you talking in NewSpeak.
Spending is Taxing...
Keeping your own money is 'an entitlement program'...
Blah, blah, blah...
As I told the other poster last night: You wouldn't know substance if it bit you in the butt.
You're immune to reason.
Great piece. Thanks.
In the interest of expanding your horizons beyond simply attacking the FairTax, do you have any comment on the writer's obvious disdain for the War on Terror and his high opinion of the John Birch Society?
Just curious.
Speaking of anyone making a fool of himself, Nightie, you should reread your own posts in a sound-deandened room. they are calmost complete idiocy as several posters have pointed out to you.
You bud who wrote the lead-in hasn't the foggiest idea of what the FairTax is all about (nor do you) - so you a very good paid ... the blind leading the stupid (you may pick which is which).
Almost everything he posted is just the same repetitious nonsense, made up claims that have no basis, and outright lies that you SQLers have been drooling over for months if not years now. He can't even seem to come up with anything new except for a few of points in his personal vendetta against Boortz.
Worthy of note is the fact that Vance probably doesn't realize that Boortz and/or Linder did NOT write the FairTax bill (and yes, fool, I know what he SAID in his post) but he proceeds to atack Boortz as though he were the bill author. That's merely a childish attempt to shoot the sub-assistant messenger since you don't have enough ammunition to do otherwise.
He sounds a lot like you, Nightie, with as many malapropisms and even some of the same outright lies - have you adopted another nom de guerre???
Good to be back and see that kevkrom in #86 and EternalVigilance in #91 have done such a wonderful job of ripping apart the lies and distortions of the guy who barfed up the lead-in personal attack on Boortz.
It seems that you've collectively covered the points and have even managed to shut Nightie up (which is no small accomplishment in itself, but certainly a pleasurable one for all our ears and eyes).
Great Work!!! I'll peruse it when I have more time and see if I can amplify on anything or note anything you might have overlooked - but I doubt it. Maybe I can just help reinforce some of what you've said. These guys sure love to misstate things and then accuse FairTax supporters of lying - that technique seems to be very common among them.
And in Squirrel chatter, supporting the FairTax is any way is "lying".
And YOU obviously haven't read the bill nor studied the FairTax website nor The FairTax Book.
Try it; you'd learn a lot.
Carville and Begala taught 'em well.
I'll be offline for a few days, so you'll have to deal with their inanities for awhile...
Merry Christmas, my friend!
None of those you mention are an "arm of the Federal government", but are actually paid to collect the FairTax and send it to their state unlike at present when they ARE required to be an "arm of the Federal government" (your parlance) as an unfunded mandate.
Additionally, the FairTax is nothing at all like a VAT. The VAT is a completely different type of tax used in EU countries and is like an income-based tax in that it cascades and embeds some costs of the tax system into the prices of goods - as does our own income tax system.
Likewise, fer shur!!!
Prices many not come down wit a VAT, but they certainly will with the FairTax.
As you've been told - since you've apparently chosen not to research it - the VAT is a very different tax from the FairTax and it affects prices quite differently.
The things you are posing sound very foolish and illustrate you have done no looking into the FairTax. Companies that are not selling at retail will have no FairTax to pay.
Also, there is a difference between making a specific exemption to the law and having things that are not taxed by it initially. It sounds as though you're trying to make the argument that exemptions can be added freely as time goes on. That is less likely than you imagine since any exemption raises the tax burden on everyone else and if you think that "everyone else" is going to agree to some sort of widespread wholesale additions of exemptions I believe you're gravely in error as your tax burden would be affected as would mine and all other voters. Shame on us!!
I was wondering when you would show up and make a fool of yourself. You didn't disappoint.
And, I see, you've been doing that right along throughout this (and other) threads. Keep up the dumb statements, Nightie.
Seems you have little else to offer.
Less so than most ... FAR less so than most since there's not the absolute profundity of copious and arcane laws and wording to play mischief with.
In other words - it's so much simpler that there isn't as much to disrup[t and tinker with and anything done shows up right in fromt of everyone (and on their receipts).
Why the bashing of a great Republican? Alan is up there with Sowell and Clarence Thomas.
If you list the 10 top Republicans, half of them would be black, and your rino W wouldn't make the list.
The term "finished product" has no relevance as far as the FairTax is concerned. the product itself does not determine the taxation but whether or not it is purchased by the end consumer (who normally, but not always, would be an individual).
If the screws you cite were purchased by a company using them to incorporate into some sort of product to sell at retail, then certainly the screws are not taxable. Should the end consumer buy them to repair something in his home, then this would be purchase at retail by an end consumer and the screws would be taxable. "Fair" or "Unfair" doesn't enter into the matter. It is the transaction itself rather than the item involved in the transaction that is the determinant. Nor will "every item that goes into an end product" be "tabulated and taxed at the end". The thing involved is taxed only a single time with that being at the "end" in your example when sold to the homeowner for his own use.
And, NO, the consumer won't be paying "the same taxes he does today" since at present some part of the business income tax is embedded into the price of everything we buy thereby raising prices due solely to the business income tax. With the income tax eliminated, prices will decline because of that and the wage earner will have his entire paycheck to use (plus the prebate).
... As in more of your nonsense and Looey-math.
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.