Posted on 12/11/2005 6:50:49 PM PST by Your Nightmare
Let's just leave it at the fact that you have only the smallest of small view of what's what and leave it at that.
Then every single thread to FR about this, including this very one, is just chocked full of lie after lie, posted by the proponents of the FT?
And yet, and yet, looky looky...read your very own words in the second paragraph.
Where are the provisions, that you talk of, that would prevent the percent from being raised? And why can't that ever be changed? Has there EVER been a tax that hasn't been changed in some way or another?
Unlike you, I do understand business and taxes and know history. You just make unsubstanciated claims or excuses. And since others on your side keep saying that the FT will be either 23% or 30% on the end product, then according to you, they are wrong. Okay, fine...for all any of us knows, if and when this garbage thing gets put into practice, it could wind up being 50% or 27% or some number not posted yet.
I have far more of an idea than you might realize about this subject. And I don't give a rat's rear end how much you or others might prefer "designer this" or "designer that". Those clothes are purchased for individual wearing and would certainly be taxable as such. What you refer to is the present scam of writing off on income tax such items as a questionable deduction. Perhaps you are not aware of the IRS disallowing such things. I'm certainly not going to argue the deduction from the income tax thing since that will no longer be applicable. Your argument is based on the present income tax system and its quirks - not upon reality devoid of any such tax benefit.
I'm very aware of clothes collected by museums, etc. but that's beside the point. These were already used clothes and that's why they have a value (presumably) to the museum. And tax had been paid long ago. As for "designer collections" - also a contribution influenced by the ]present tax system. Eliminate tax advantages and you'll see these "donations" dry up or even disappear. You don't seem to be aware how tax-benefitted and tax-fdriven some of these things are. Are you trying to argue that such is a good and equitable tax system??? Since you apparently benefit from it, you probably are - despite the drawbacks.
As I've said you can CALL almost anything an "investment", but truly making money off of it is ofter very problematic - even under the income tax laws which are the thing that drives many of these plans. "Donate your not-running car and get a tax write-off", etc. Perhaps you'd argue your old car is an "investment" too? Or as I mentioned earlier how about my Fruit of the Loom underwear since I bought that as an "investment" knowing it would some day be donated to the Met.
In short you're mixing your metaphors and mixing up u=your tax systems with reality as to what is and is not an investment. Calling it such does not make it one.
I nowhere said that "exemptions would be changed". My comment on that had quite adifferent meaning in that changing them was actually quite difficult - which I believe is the way it should be.
I agree - and that's the American way. But the word "legally" is both important and observed by most people (there will always be some who do not do that, though). With the FairTax, legally not paying taxes on items purchased at retail is not so easy to do. Stop and thing, something like 80% of the retail trade (dollarwise) in this country is done by about 20% of the sellers. Wal-Mart is quite unlikely to rish its business to give either you or me a 23% knockoff of the legally-required tax.
There's also no shame in legally paying taxes (in contrast to some presently in the illegal economy who evade it - illegally, of course).
I'm glad to hear that you're so open minded.
Perhaps you might read the bill again to learn a bit more from it, or better yet spend some time on the FairTax website pursuing subjects of interest to you.
I have read them all on this thread and I understand them.
I certainly do not agree with you in many particulars and find you comments very misinformed in many respects. You're just flat wrong in many of your views as I'bve been pointing out. That doesn't mean I'd expect you to change. History shows that those sorts of views never change.
Ah, but is doesn't "punish people" as you say. In fact it will benefit most taxpayers and the economy as a whole.
If you can't see that you should spend some more time on the FairTax website.
"gibberish"?? "repetitive and boring"??
The pot calls the kettle black, more like. And you;'eve never responded to the several questions I've asked you on this thread.
You clearly don;'t understand what most of the posters have been saying to you.
Certainly new goods and services SOLD TO INDIVIDUAL CONSUMERS AT RETAIL will be taxed. That has been consistently said.
It;'s also been consistently said that the tax was 23% t.i. or 29,87% t.e. (some merely say 30%). The difficulty of raising the tax rate is exactly as I explained it - and I did not say that there awere provisions in the bill but that this was a natural operation of the mechanism of a sales tax (as even Jefferson said). If anything, I expect that the ratee is more likely to decline fairly soon due to boosted economic activity. The opinion is held by many economists that the FairTax will cause a sizeable economic boom and that will help business and taxpayers over all.
I say the same thing as other FairTax supporters - that the tax will be 23%t.i/29.87%t.e. on taxable goods and services. Nowhere have I ever said otherwise, though if presently implememted the rate might actually start at 19-20 t.i. but the 23% figure is in the bill. Your claim I call them wrong is merely nonsense.
You're the one making repeated unsubstantiated claims and excuses. And your attempts at derision aren't particularly well-directed either.
The part I love is how the bill is referenced as though it is holy scripture, a stone handed down on Mt. Zion that will be accepted intact by the Congress and passed in its present form.I know, and they expect the same people (Democrats and Republicans) who fall all over themselves to seperate you from your money to be the ones to pass it as is...
I didn't say that I could write off my clothes and shoes now. I said that under the FT, as explained by others here, I would be able to. But I can write donations to museums off now; it's in the present tax code. And no, you're dead wrong, they aren't "questionable" tax write offs at all.Neither is it a scam at all. Museums would be bereft of many valuable assets, if people didn't donate to them.
It's hardly "beside the point" at all.
Eliminate write offs for donations and far less will be donated, contributing to a paucity of historical things available to the public and historians. And that is the "drawback"; not what you claim.
You're being rather silly...re your underwear.
And you are ignoring the salient points I made about what is actually collectible. You can't refute me on this; not even with your cheapo underwear.
I've mixed no metaphors; hell's bells, I haven't used any metaphors at all!
You really should refrain from talking about or using terms you don't understand at all.
Nothing about this codswallop is of interest to me. :-)
Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww...you poor weiddle thing.
And just try telling them that, as I have and look at the replies! LOL
First you say one thing, now another. Well, which is it? I'm sure you have no idea, but by posting contradictory posts, you can then claim that you were correct. LOL
" Why should he (or anybody else, for that matter)? I didn't have to listen to him very long to realize he's a loudmouth buffoon."
Don't throw away the golden egg just because the goose has feces on his feathers.
Or something like that. Ah-so
Doesn't sound too bad to me....cut down on landfills, not to mention all the dangerous chemicals that are leaked from the PCBs of discarded PC's.
PREBATE, MCFLY, PREBATE.
You're right: the income redistribution is also immoral.
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.