Posted on 07/19/2006 7:26:18 AM PDT by Arcy
The FairTax was on the primary ballots in three Georgia counties yesterday. I have the results of the voting! Here you go.
Gwinnett County:
Total Votes: 35,755 Yes - 31,068. 86.9% No - 4,687 13.1%
Cobb County:
Total votes: 39,458 Yes - 33,598. 85.15% No - 5,860. 14.85%
Fayette County:
Total votes: 11,517 Yes - 9,828. 85.33% No - 1,689. 14.67%
According to Boortz the results of this vote will be personally handed to President Bush today via a Washington insider. The purpose of which is to convey the FACT that there is great support for this solution to current tax system and that this is a plan that can get the voters to the polls. Many of which called and e-mailed Boortz to say that they had no plans of voting yesterday until they learned that the Fair Tax was on the ballot.
.
(Excerpt) Read more at boortz.com ...
It's a refund of taxes much like the refund you get on April 15. Guess you haven't been paying attention or have an EXCEPTIONALLY short memory.
So who cares what Pete Wilson did 15 years ago. That (1991) was something like 15 years AFTER Prop. 13 in any event. Why post such meaningless nonsense???
How is it you increase the size of government with reduced funding (which is what Prop 13 did)???Prop 13 didn't reduce funding. It's too complicated for you to comprehend.
The prebate is merely a refund of taxes paidHow do you refund taxes paid BEFORE taxes are paid?...read the bill... lying moron!!----
That's not what was said, fool (and you know it). Read the bill.
By the entitlement payments? The spirit of George McGovern lives.
From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.
An FT spammer wouldn't care about skyrocketing sales taxes.
It describes it quite accurately in the bill. A monthly refund of taxes up to the poverty level of spending based upon your family size.
A monthly "refund" of unpaid taxes.
The FairTax merely gives you more disposable personal income compared to the income tax - and there have been a number of numeric examples given on this thread that show that clearly.
Perhaps you should get your pal Pete Wilson to explain that to you ... or read the bill.
Reducing tax paid doesn't reduce funding. No wonder you're always so far off on the FairTax tripe you post.BWAHAHAHAHAHA!....Who said anything about reducing taxes paid?. Basicly Prop 13 froze rates, changed the way property is assesed and then limits any increases...See I told you it's too complicated for your little mind.
To say the Fairtax reduces taxes paid would be your tripe not mine...Actually to say it reduces taxes paid is contrary to the "revenue neutral" tripe from the Fairtax rhetoric.
BTW, what state has some of the highest property values in the country?...Reduced taxes paid? As always simple logic escapes you.
Don't confuse him with facts. He's still babbling about how the cult's welfare scheme is a tax refund because some of the recipients pay taxes.
Prop 13 took place many years ago and DID cut the funds accessible to government.Does that upset you and your liberal friends in California? It passed 28 yrs ago and we're still growing.
You claim a person's home is not an asset or an investment, maybe you can explain what's wrong with the way prop. 13 taxes Californian's property...other than it "DID cut the funds accessible to government"
LOL! ..."cut funds accessible to government"....That's classic.
(it's optional and at least one poster on this thread seems o not want it - which helps the rest of us).LOL! How? Do we get to divvy up what he doesn't want?...BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
WE have to STOP the political pandering between interest groups and purchased votes.
Don't confuse him with facts. He's still babbling about how the cult's welfare scheme is a tax refund because some of the recipients pay taxes."It's a refund of taxes paid"...
So if you didn't pay any taxes you don't get a refund...what's to refund?
Did you mark a Cobb, Gwinnett or Fayette Ballot?
I did, it didn't mention propeerty tax and Boortz is not full of it.
[who does that leave?]
From the AJC:
"Republican voters in Gwinnett and Cobb counties, for example, will get to sound off on illegal immigrants and say whether they'd like the federal income tax replaced with a national sales tax known as the "Fair Tax.""
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/0718metstraw.html
I didn't say "where there's money there's black markets". I said that 30% federal sales tax, plus state and local taxes, all collected at a single point, create a powerful incentive and opportunity for black market activity.
You actually support my contention when you argue that seeing the tax on the receipt of every item and every service purchased will make tax payers conscious of just how much money government is costing them, and that they will rise up and demand smaller government, you are predicting that the tax will be onerous.
Sorry to disagree with you but one does not follow from the other otherwise there'd be a much larger black market right now...
It was estimated that the size of the black market, worldwide, in 1998 was over 9 trillion dollars. If the black market were a country, its economy would be the 2nd largest in the world.
...since there is more money floating around at higher tax rates than there will be under the FairTax so there'll be less of an incentive under the FairTax for such shenanigans. You need to think, for example, why someone paying income tax at the rate of 28% plus the 15.3% withholding taxes for a total of 43.3% (and these are tax inclusive rates that correspond to the 23% FairTax rate) would they not have a greater incentive to evade than at the lower rate?? Of course thy would by your own logic.
You can not reasonably argue on one hand that making the tax visible and thus so burdensome that taxpayers will be motivated to do something about it and the other hand people will recognize they are better off with the FairTax and so will not be motivated to avoid paying the tax. You contradict yourself.
We both agree, the FairTax creates motivation. We just disagree on what people will be motivated to do.
Now if you insist on using the misleading "30%" figure (it's actually 29.87%), then we'll have to use the tax exclusive numbers for the income tax example we just gave - which would be 76.37%. But you'll notice that the income tax figure is still higher by a substantial margin and so should attract all sorts of evaders, shouldn't it? The answer is "yes.
Thirty percent is not misleading, 23% is misleading.
As you and your fellow supporters have pointed out, its more difficult to avoid taxes under the current system because tax collection occurs at several points, we have taxes with held from our pay checks, file tax returns, pay tax inflated prices at the store, etc., and still we have tax evaders.
Then, too, the opportunity for evasion under the FairTax is not only less profitable, but less likely since the tax is paid when you make your retail purchases and the Wal-Mart clerk's not likely to say "Pssst - wanna buy a tax free watch???". In addition there will be many more auditing resources available to the state sales tax authorities than at present and they'll need to cover far fewer businesses since only retailers are involved.
It probably would happen more like this; You have dinner with your sister and brother-in-law and mention that you are planning to buy a plasma TV. Your brother-in-law says he knows a guy who can get for you at 35% less than the Wal-Mart price. No tax authorities need be involved.
As for the morality of the transaction - well, I work hard for my money, it belongs to me and government is stealing the fruits of my labor. Why shouldn't I keep what's mine and spend it where and with whom I wish.
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.