Posted on 04/16/2006 7:49:45 AM PDT by Eaglewatcher
See the word eligible!
`(d) Annual Registration- In order to receive the family consumption allowance provided by section 301, a qualified family must register with the sales tax administering authority in a form prescribed by the Secretary. Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
`(e) Registration Not Mandatory- Registration is not mandatory for any qualified family.Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
See the words NOT Mandatory!
The Four Seasons will do fine for lunch.
Nuf said!
What do you say now?
I wouldn't find the AMT so objectionable if it were truly an "Alternative Minimum Tax".
Of course, it is no such thing. It does NOT ensure that everybody pays taxes. It simply penalizes high-earners while allowing all the lower-earners to go un-taxed. Of course, the fact that they pay no taxes doesn't stop them from voting.
NO REPRESENTATION WITHOUT TAXATION !
NO REPRESENTATION WITHOUT TAXATION !
NO REPRESENTATION WITHOUT TAXATION !
Simple answer, no. But this isn't simple. If the 16th amendment is not repealed their is nothing, especially "voter anger" that will stop the politicos from reforming the Income Tax. 50% of Americans do not pay Federal Income Tax. Without a repeal; you can't hear those porkers saying, "we're only going to tax the rich"?
I don't know about you, but I can.
You are correct about the bill & I bow to your good research. I have never seen this up to now, & was basing my remarks on the Fair Tax Web site & the article posted. Please forgive me for believing what I read from the source, & for failing to find out about pending legislation which is different from the original proposal.
I should have known the pols would spice up a good tax proposal with oodles of sub-sub-paragraphs, with footnotes as far as the eye can see.
Well, enjoy this new system while you can - that is - until it becomes law.
I still like the National Sales Tax idea, but the rebate is a political pig.
Well, a hundred and twenty pages is an improvement over the 60,000 pages of the current tax code, so I'm not too unhappy with it yet. Of course, there are plenty of details not addressed which will undoubtedly add hundreds more pages.
Glad to hear you favor an NRST. I also do not like the 'Rebate/Prebate/FCA', but it is a political necessity. We have drifted too far into socialism to correct it all at once. Too many people think there should be no taxes on "necessities" -- which translates into people that spend all their income on "necessities" also paying no taxes. Socialism, pure and simple. As though there is some class of people that do not benefit from government and shouldn't have to pay for it.
If it helps any, think of the FCA as a tax refund in advance. Since it only refunds the taxes up to poverty-level, 95% of the money refunded is from people who will pay more than that amount in FairTax as they spend above poverty-level.
FairTax.org is generally good information, but I've been caught out several times by relying on their simplifications. They are not what anybody would call an "unbiased" source, and the final word is the text of the bill before Congress. Even within the text of the bill, you'll find some of us disagree on what the language means. A bill should be crystal clear in my opinion, and this one isn't there yet.
I think the roundabout answer is still "No".
Congresscritters currently pay only enough attention to their constituents to make it sound like they care. Their attention is split by lobbyists for business interests. The less the government interferes with business, the less lobbying those business interests will do, so untaxing business will remove a lot of the lobbying that goes on -- along with a lot of the campaign finance. That will leave Congresscritters listening to their constituents. In particular, those constituents that donate heavily to their campaigns.
Those wealthy donors will fund other candidates rather than be fleeced again. I tend to think they've learned their lesson over the last 90 years and won't let it happen to them again.
If the government gets hungry for money, I think they'll focus on the remaining social-engineering taxes -- raise fuel taxes "to reduce reliance of foreign oil and to save the environment" and alcohol taxes "to discourage the associated health problems", etc. You know, places where the minority they pounce on won't have an impact on their re-election campaign finances.
You're right.
I should have said transactions, but it will mostly be automatic deposits and not physical checks to be printed and mailed.
He has chosen not to answer some direct questions so I am thinking that he is just a disruptor trying to take the thread off track. He may just be busy, so I will withhold final judgment for a while.
If we can get the FT passed, there will be enough support to get the amendment passed too. Those who try to reinstitute the IT will be hung from the nearest tree and I'll chip in for the rope.
(We can't shoot them because it's illegal to possess a gun in DC.) LOL
You're right again.
With the end of tampering, there will be less need to lobby them for protection or favors. They will be tax exempt. Why would they want to mess with that?
Who? I hope you're not speaking of me, not with a join date of June of '99.
Those who try to reinstitute the IT will be hung from the nearest tree and I'll chip in for the rope.
I'd like to believe that you are right. However I cannot. With better than 50% of citizens not having to pay income tax NOW, it will be really easy to convince the "unwashed masses" that an income tax would be a good way for "the rich to pay their fair share".
'Course the same argument is a good one against the Fair Tax. How do we convince the 50% who do not pay taxes now to increase their tax burden?
The FCA should convince them they still won't "pay" taxes under the FairTax.
Of course, once somebody has money in their hands, they tend to be more possesive of it. So receiving that FCA money and then having to pay it out in FairTax will be more painful to them than not having paid an income tax was. They'll be no better off financially, but will vote "NO" on any tax increase.
As far as a new "tax the rich" scheme being brought in, I think the wealthy have learned their lesson and will kill any attempt to reinstate it.
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.