Posted on 01/11/2006 11:59:10 AM PST by Eaglewatcher
That is precisely the point. The entire education sector is exempt under the Fair Tax. The Fair Tax picks winners and losers in the economy. It exempts, what, 5-10% of the economy. Why not exempt the health care sector, too. That is at least as much of an "investment" as education.Couldn't anything that appreciates (e.g., a house, art) be considered an investment?
Once again, your analogy is flawed. It is the STUDENTS who are given the "tax break" (if you want to call it that) under the FairTax, not the teachers, etc.Are you implying, admitting actually, there would be noticeable price increases on non-exempt services under the Fairtax?
Try applying your "It is the students who are given the tax break" analogy to other exempt businesses VS consumers under the revenue neutral Fairtax...it doesn't work, does it.
Not in economics.
Not in economics.I get that. I was talking in the political process. The National Association of Realtors currently lobbies Congress that a home purchase should be treated as an investment. I doubt they would stop trying to make this point if the FairTax were enacted. I think they would triple their efforts.
Well sure. Anything could be defined as an "investment" in the political process. That's what the Fair Taxers are doing with education. They are trying to implement their public policy preferences through the tax code. Education is good in their minds, and it shouldn't be taxed. Therefore, it is magically an "investment" and not consumption. Health care could equally be determined to be an "investment". Housing is a large portion of people's net worth. Why not make that an "investment"? That is the problem I have with Fair Taxers. They are willing to use the political process to pick winners and losers in the economy right out of the gate. And they have the nerve to suggest flat taxers aren't pure? Hah!
"I believe as Reagan said, broaden the base and lower the rate. Consequently, I believe that we should tax all economic activity only once at a very low rate."
Ok, I am confused then, because I thought you supported the flat tax, which certainly taxes the same economic sectors multiple times throughout the production chain.
I am, however, delighted that you acknowledge the benefit of having a broad tax base as a means of keeping the rate at a minimum, since the FairTax has the broadest base of any tax reform proposal that I am aware of.
"If you don't tax it as consumption, you are not taxing an entire sector in the economy. Therefore, the taxes on all other sectors must be higher."
So all sectors of the economy are considered consumption? You would therefore favor taxing investment income? Are you sure you understand the nature of a consumption tax?
"By magically declaring education to be an 'investment'..."
You keep referring to concepts that you don't understand as "magic". You are welcome to your opinion, but you should be aware that it isn't widely held.
"FWIW, the Hall-Rabushka flat tax treats everyone the same under both of the above tests."
Great, what's the bill number? BTW, thank you for now referring to the specific version of the flat tax that you support, rather than just a generic "flat tax".
"That is one reason the flat tax is superior."
The Hall-Rubushka flat tax, you mean? That would appear to be a matter of opinion, I would say.
"You really need to take the basic micro-economics class at your local community college. Your understanding of economics could use a little improvement. Please consider it."
Your arrogant and condescending tone does nothing to enhance your position.
"Try applying your 'It is the students who are given the tax break' analogy to other exempt businesses VS consumers under the revenue neutral Fairtax...it doesn't work, does it."
I have no idea what point you are trying to make.
I always use economic principles when talking economics. It is not opinion.
Your arrogant and condescending tone does nothing to enhance your position.
I am not arrogant. I am suggesting that you learn a little bit about what you're talking about. Again, if you understood economic terms, our discussion would be much more fruitful. I truly think a micro-economic class would be helpful for you.
You base your position on an inaccurate understanding of economics. Therefore, I can't conclude if your position is one of ignorance or emotion.
Ok, I am confused then, because I thought you supported the flat tax, which certainly taxes the same economic sectors multiple times throughout the production chain.
This is an example of an inaccurate understanding of economics. The flat tax only taxes economic activity once. Please consider the micro-economics class.
"This is an example of an inaccurate understanding of economics. The flat tax only taxes economic activity once. Please consider the micro-economics class."
I will pass your suggestion along to the 81 professional economists who have endorsed the FairTax.
http://www.fairtax.org/pdfs/Open_Letter_President.pdf
Oh, but it is a matter of interpretation to a large degree. To me education is not consumed but something done to (hopefully) yield greater rewards - not necesarily monetary, but usually so - down the line.
And I also think it is more correct to consider education as "not taxed" rather than "being exempted".
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.