Fair Tax gets 86% of vote in Georgia! Results will be sent to President Bush.

Nealz Nuze ^ | July 19, 2006 | Neal Boortz

[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.

.

[lucysmom]

It's been asked for several times and not answered:

It has been answered - sorry you missed it, but its still in the thread.

[Always Right]

There must be some difference, otherwise xcamel was saying that there's nothing inherently wrong with ANY income tax. So, what makes AN income tax better than THE income tax?

A flatter and less complicated one without the excessive social engineering and outright welfare. When a poster says there is nothing inherently wrong with an income tax, it is clear what they are saying. They are speaking in general terms, and in fact implying that there are problems with the way income taxes are actually implimented.

[lucysmom]

I'm glad to hear you agree that the nrst allows choices to be made that will allow one to reduce his tax burden without buying less.

Does it occur to you that if people makes purchasing choices that are not taxed, or avoid the tax, it blows your contention that tax collections will equal or surpass what we have now?

BTW buying less does not mean having less.

[pigdog]

Well now - I can't advise you on whether you should run to the Mods to try (again) to get me banned or not - you'll just have to ponder that one out yourself.

While you're trying to solve that thorny issue, let's look at the actual quote of yours from #837 as well as what it said and meant. The quote was:

"Uh, if prices fall, so does the poverty level (it's based on a set basket of goods), and, therefore, so does the FCA. The FairTax shell game continues."

It's very clear from the quote (since that's what it says) that you're talking about the prebate and its annual adjustment by the HHS - the department who promulgates the poverty guidelines used for the prebate (or FCA as you call it in your post). You also say the poverty level is "based on a set basket of goods" which is the phrase I took issue with. In fact, as you'll see shortly the poverty guidelines the HHS uses are - well, I'll let them say it:

"Guidelines are updated from the latest published (final) weighted average poverty thresholds using the CPI-U. (Figures are rounded, and differences between adjacent-family-size figures are equalized.)"

So, you see, the figures used to do the annual update of the prebate (or FCA if you prefer) come from the CPI and not at all from any "set basket of goods" as you stated. Since your claim was that the poverty level (or, correctly, poverty guidelines) was based upon a "set basket of goods" and we now find that "set basket of goods" to be not that at all but the CPI manipulation so that your characterization of what the annual adjustment was based upon had to refer to the CPI as there is no other annual adjusting factor used.

My comment took issue with your misstatement as to what the poverty guidelines were based on and - since they are based on the CPI (which is public information) - your statement had to be referring to the CPI since it is the determinant factor used in the annual updating. They (the poverty guidelines) are based not upon a "set basket of goods" but upon the CPI and to make your statement you were defining the update determinant (the CPI) as a "set basket of goods". It is not, nor is the prebate based upon a "set basket of goods" either per se or in referring to the CPI in that manner. Either is equally incorrect.

[pigdog]

To explain this to you (if you're interested) see post #964

[lucysmom]

What in the world did that mean?

[Principled]

A flatter and less complicated one without the excessive social engineering and outright welfare.

An nrst is more flat than any income tax.
An nrst is less complicated than any income tax
An nrst has less (if any) social engineering - no exemptions by product
An nrst has less outright welfare than any income tax.

If those are good things, the nrst excels.

[Principled]

Does it occur to you that if people makes purchasing choices that are not taxed, or avoid the tax, it blows your contention that tax collections will equal or surpass what we have now?

Do you think it's a bad thing if the gov't takes in less tax if its citizens choose to make it so?!

[lewislynn]

I'm only denying that your frantic attempt to claim the CPI was somehow determined by a "set basket" of stuff was incorrect.

BLS

"The CPIs are based on prices of food, clothing, shelter, and fuels, transportation fares, charges for doctors' and dentists' services, drugs, and other goods and services that people buy for day-to-day living."

You know, like necessities.

food, clothing, shelter, and fuels, transportation fares, charges for doctors' and dentists' services, drugs, and other goods and services that people buy for day-to-day living

Looks like a set basket of goods to me....What else could the CPI be?

[Principled]

Does it occur to you that if people makes purchasing choices that are not taxed, or avoid the tax, it blows your contention that tax collections will equal or surpass what we have now?

That is not my contention. My contention is that legal participants of today's income/payroll tax system will experience gains in purchasing power when we go to HR 25.

What your point illustrates though is that undr HR 25, the residents of the US may CHOOSE to reduce their taxes and CHOOSE to send less to the government and that even an anti-nrst person recognizes it.

[Principled]

What a change. For the last few years, the anti-nrst crowd has been screaming about how the nrst will ruin us all with exorbitantly high prices.

They're not saying that anymore. Indeed they flee that argument.

Now they talk about definite and indefinite articles or baskets of goods.

[pigdog]

Don't try putting words in my mouth - that works very poorly. That was not at all what was said.

If you can't understand what was said, go back and read the posts again but in any event stop misstating what I've said.

[Always Right]

My comment took issue with your misstatement as to what the poverty guidelines were based on and - since they are based on the CPI

Poverty level was based on a basket of goods, you certainly know that from all the pages you quote, but conveniently left that part out. It is adjusted by the CPI-M, but Your Nightmare was correct in what it was based on and now you are just performing your usual mental gymnastics to try to cover up your error. You are pitiful. For once, just admit you were wrong and move on. Geez.

[pigdog]

Oh, great!!! Which post number???

[Always Right]

An nrst has less outright welfare than any income tax.

The NRST prebate will rival Social Security as the biggest social welfare program we have, roughly $500 billion per year.

[lucysmom]

Do you think it's a bad thing if the gov't takes in less tax if its citizens choose to make it so?!

So then, its ok with you if citizens avoid paying the income tax?

Your question is a complex one and can't be answered with a simple yes or no. Right now we have a government that is spending, as one author put it, like a teenager with a credit card. Grownups know that sooner or latter the bill comes due and with interest added. A Grownup does not use a credit card as if it were free money.

The FairTax will most certainly result in lower tax collections, and that will not necessarily result in reduced spending by government. History teaches that.

Avoiding grownup discussion and informed decision making by manipulating government into a crisis, and that's what you want to do, is a very bad idea and will have consequences you haven't even begun to think of.

[pigdog]

And I've said repeatedly (as have others) that indeed there IS something (many things, actually) wrong (inherently or otherwise) with any and all income-based taxes. That encompasses the income tax, an income tax, any income tax, all income taxes, etc. And not just SLIGHTLY wrong, but grievously askew and fatally flawed.

Gott it!!

[pigdog]

It meant just what it said. Since you weren't part of the discussion (and it's a bit late to jump in), you might need to go back to #837 and read from there on.

[lucysmom]

Don't try putting words in my mouth - that works very poorly. That was not at all what was said.

Oh that's rich!

[groanup]

Looks like a set basket of goods to me....What else could the CPI be?

The CPI is a phone call. A bunch of nice ladies calling homes all over the US asking what they paid for stuff. No basket. Wide of the hoop as they say in BASKETball.