Posted on 07/19/2006 7:26:18 AM PDT by Arcy
Certainly I understood you point and even said as much in one of two of the posts. I clearly also said that was not what I was talking about.So why even waste time contending an irrelevant point?
[And , no, I didn't lie about what you said].>You most certainly did. You said I "claim[ed] the CPI was somehow determined by a 'set basket' of stuff." I never said or claimed any such thing.
The reason, of course is that the worker has more in the way of takehome pay with the federal taxes that were previously removed from the paycheck AND he receives the prebate.
Also, it's "poverty guidelines" that determine the prebate, not "poverty rate".
Let it go man. It was not an erroneous statement. Your characterazation of it was erroneous. Just for once admit it.
"Why don't all of you just drop such a profitless discussion and move on"
... and now you're sounding like an echo. The difference is that I'm not about to say that the poster's statement was not erroneous - since it was and I explained that at length in #964. If you choose to believe he's not in error, that's fine, but don't ever think I'll agree with that.
I'd be willing (as I've said before) to leave it at that and move to something more meaningful and I'd hope you would be too, If not, that's fine too as I suppose you can drag this out into an indefinite amount of meaningless posting.
Suit yourself.
Ooops. Have you missed the entire thread?
Wages remain the same. Take home pay increases due to the elimination of withholding.
The nominal prices of goods goes up (according to all of the anti-nrst folks), not down.
But the increase in take home pay exceeds the nominal increases in prices such that purchasing power is increased for every quintile, every family size of LEGAL participants in the income/payroll tax system.
According to you then, as nominal prices rise so will the rebate. Increase lewis. Opposite of what you say.
BTW, most people lie about what they pay for things because they don't want anyone to think they're stupid enough to get screwed.
Speak for yourself!
So you can keep calling for "revolt" if you like, but it'll fall on deaf ears.
If they choose to spend less, tax collections will go down, and they will be legally avoiding their FairShare of taxes.
If they decide to pressure government to lower taxes, that would be called a taxpayer revolt just as prop 13 was in California.
The equivalent thing with the FairTax would be to pass the FairTax into law and would NOT be the individual consumer decisions under that law once passed. That's no "revolt" at all but just the normal consumption process with consumers making their own free will choices of buying or not based upon their own considerations and circumstances.
Who has nothing to do with either writing new laws or amending the Constitution.
Here's a link which may help these people to understand the President's role in our government.
A "sales tax rebate" based on poverty levels rather than taxes actually paid by the recipient, if any.
Scam.
Income tax personal/standard deductions and multitudes of credits based on nothing more than political pandering blatently setting groups of voters against each.
Not just a scam but total and blatant political manipulation of the electorate.
I'll take a standard sales tax rebate of HR25 available to all citizens rooted in the concept of taxing only that which is above necessity level spending any anyday.
Then there are those others who believe that taxing what is necessary to mere existance and in effect the the unalienable right to Life is appropriate.
I guess it takes all kinds.
Spoken like a tax protest crank.
Actually, a guaranteed monthly entitlement payment made without regard to any tax actually paid by the recipient would be political pandering in an attempt to sell this aging pig.
I see, you're just out trolling for tail end Charlie.
Good day to yol.
Have a nice spam.
There've been many postings of links to data that show that even though with income at the poverty guideline level (of below) still spend at much higher levels so there will be very few, if any, who don't pay the FairTax - and they'll pay at the same marginal rate as all other taxpayers.
You seem to be defending the present income tax system and it labyrinth and unjustifiable complex system of actual entitlements, exceptions, exemptions, deductions, and just plain old special favors. Under the FairTax, there are none of those things.
That's no "revolt" at all but just the normal consumption process with consumers making their own free will choices of buying or not based upon their own considerations and circumstances.Right, because we all know the monthly spending by most people is a luxurious choice and not for their needed everyday lifestyle.
Don't want to pay the tax? Alter your everyday lifestyle downward....
You.
Teach those greedy people who have saved for retirement a lesson!
No, but rather because taxpayers will have much improved purchasing power under the FairTax which has been shown by many actual numerical examples. Perhaps you didn't understand them??
As for those on retirement, they'll do just fine as some of the numerical examples comparing purchasing power have shown.
Perhaps you'd like to provide a set of numbers for a representative taxpayer under the income tax that we could help educate you about?
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.