Posted on 09/17/2006 8:03:05 AM PDT by Principled
A Battlefield for Tax Reform
There are a few significant battlefields in the war for tax reform. One of them is Free Republic. What makes the Free Republic battlefield significant is that the debate is at the cutting edge. The debate on Free Republic is the most current and most knowledgeable. It is a year ahead of other significant battlefields (radio talk shows, political town-hall meetings, conversations among neighbors and coworkers.)
The trend on Free Republic with respect to tax reform is going to show up in the real world. Free Republic is a tiny segment of the world, albeit a more educated, more politically motivated, more affluent segment than most. Perhaps those are a few of the reasons that Free Republic predicts what will happen in the real world – the world of radio, newspapers, network television, and most importantly - elections.
The choices are
Keep the status quo and continue with our graduated income tax
Eliminate the income tax and implement a flat income tax (although this option has negligible support)
Eliminate the income tax and implement a national sales tax
There are no other options. We are going to have taxes. The only choice is deciding the best way to have them.
Whichever choice you prefer, one thing is clear. The opponents of tax reform on Free Republic will stop at nothing to protect the status quo. Here’s what’s happening on Free Republic (remember it’s a predictor of what will happen in the real world.)
Opponents of reform randomly select perceived problems, however insignificant, and say that’s the reason this reform cannot work. For example, attackers of HR 25 (the “Fair Tax”) have alternately said the rate is too high and then the rate is too low. Whatever seems to get traction is what they stick with. Is it no wonder the perception is that these anti-reformers are not being honest with the reason(s) they oppose the reform. This is why so many question the motives of the anti-reformers. What are they hiding?
The anti-reformers try to make the reform threads so unpleasant that people choose not to participate in them (what does this predict about the real world?)
An anti-reformer may be taking advantage of the positions he he was entrusted with by the site (modertor). By taking sides in threads, berating and belittling pro-nrst posters, by deleting threads, by locking threads, and by moving threads from news/ACTIVISM to “Bloggers and Personal” and to “Smokey Backroom”, the mod(s) in question are taking away from the greatest site on the internet. Sometimes, threads are moved to bloggers and then moved to SBR or vica versa.
Pro-nrst posters are suspended for things that don’t make sense. Anti nrst posters are not suspended for things that should require it - comes to mind the picture of a dog copulating with a pig with the comment “screw you pigdog”… “I found a picture of your parents”. Noteworthy is that the poster of said graphic and phrase were not suspended but rather the recipient of it was suspended for complaining about it.
What does this predict about the real world?
Suffice to say that the debate about tax reform is won by the reformers. The proof is that when educated about the three reform options, the general public chooses the nrst over 70% of the time.
The only question is whether the dishonesty of the anti-reformers will slow the progress of reform in the real world. This is NOT to say that all anti reformers are dishonest - but it is the dishonest ones who are tainting the others.
The good thing about the debate is that the nrst is the most thoroughly investigated alternative - each and every point is debated in complete detail. Problems have been identified and some changes have been made. That's a good thing. And as debate continues, the level of knowledge of any lurkers continues. As I said, I predict over 70% will choose the nrst.
I'll take your guarantee to be worth exactly what it cost me ...
Isn't trying to obtain that sort of personal information against posing guidlines?
If we had a country that was conservative enough to repeal the 16th amendment, we's also be able to easily privatize social security, reform medicare, and reduce welfare. And under those circumstances, with the government cut in half, then we would be able to have the discussion about whether an income tax or a sales tax is better. We do not have that country, and the 16th repeal is not going to happen after a sales tax is implemented.
What exactly are you "posing" as?
I understand that with your willingness to do or say anything to oppose the FairTax that you can't/won't accept that ... but there it is!!
"posing" = "posting" ... and the question stands.
Those studies have been shown to be misunderstood, misrepresented, and wrong. Since they were paid for by FairTax money, that is to be expected, people typically get what they pay for when studies are done for lobbyists. But when they get to the real world, no one believes them.
You are like the global warming scientists with their studies and lists of aligned scientists.
No it is not against posting guidelines to ask whether a person has a financial interest in his postings.
"... under the FairTax the costs of state and local government is going to go up substantially .... "
I see ... and where are the links to all of the studies by economists that irrefutably show this??? Or is this just another of your little "...it's true because I say so ..." statements???
Could you provide, perhaps, a website similar to the FairTax website that has the wealth of economic information that it provides but showing these things you claim???
A mathematician, an accountant, and an economist are applying for the same job.
The interviewer calls in the mathematician and asks "What does two plus two equal?" The mathematician replies "Four". The interviewer asks, "Four, exactly?" The mathematician looks at the interviewer incredulously and says, "Yes, exactly."
The accountant is called in and asked the same question. "What does two plus two equal?" The accountant says "On average, four - give or take 10 per cent, but on average, four."
Finally, the interviewer calls in the economist and poses the same question, "What does two plus two equal?" The economist gets up, locks the door, closes the shades, sits down next to the interviewer and says, "What do you want it to equal?"
"If they made it only an income surtax on the "evil" rich, it would be a piece of cake if the situation required it-- like everyone realizing the FairTax caused all prices to go WAY up, and the economy to tank... "
Certainly you're welcome to your opinion no matter how far-fetched it may be. Why do you think voters would approve of any such tax unless you think people at large are really that stupid, since it would be what they just got rid of???
And as for your "piece of cake" it had better have a great big glass of milk since it will have to restart any income tax from scratch against both Congregational AND voter opposition. Your piece of cake will remain uneaten I think.
Until then you may fuss and fume about it all you wish since such is meaningless.
I take that to mean you have none of the links you claimed and which I requested. Too bad.
"we would be able to have the discussion about whether an income tax or a sales tax is better"
You seem to not realize that that very "discussion" is being held right now and is in fact very far along.
... and the income tax is not the one "winning". The FairTax is - in fact it has already won. The only question remaining is how soon will it be voted into law. It is clearly the better system economically AND the one needed to move the country ahead economically on a number of fronts. Many economic studies show this.
"... You are like the global warming scientists ..."
Frankly I don't see what such a gratuitous comment has to do with the FairTax. Perhaps you could explain???
"... misunderstood, misrepresented, and wrong ..."
Please provide the links that demonstrate your claims.
Since you refused to do that on the earlier post, I've not much hope you'll do it now but I'll try.
Dear Jim Noble,
You can see that the folks who support the NRST can come up with no sensible reason for pushing for implementation of the NRST before the repeal of the 16th Amendment.
You can see that they reject the idea of including language in the NRST legislation to the effect that the NRST would only come into being once the 16th Amendment was repealed. Alternatively, constitutional amendments have been written with effective dates that were delayed, which, in this case, would provide the federal government the time to switch over from one tax collection system to the other.
You see assertions that that's not possible, but little by way of reasonable explanation why that is. Assertion without argument.
This is what is regularly offered up on behalf of the NRST.
I don't know why in the world we should encourage Congress to starting taxing us with a national sales tax before we strip them of the authority to tax our incomes.
sitetest
That said, I am not in the group you describe - I would like to have them tied.
Dear Principled,
"Who would eliminate the income tax without a replacement?"
If the NRST legislation were initially passed, it could be passed with the caveat that it would not take effect until the 16th Amendment was repealed. Just change the legislation to state that the NRST will not be put into place, that no national sales tax will be collected, until the 16th Amendment is repealed and the federal government is stripped of any constitutional authority to tax our incomes.
In that case, the income tax would be replaced with the NRST upon the repeal of the 16th Amendment.
If you want to push the repeal first - without first passing a form of the NRST legislation, then the repeal amendment could state that repeal would not be effective until an NRST was put into place.
Actually, I think you'd likely get more support for the NRST AND repeal of the 16th Amendment if it were done this way.
sitetest
I tbink it's because pols know voters wouldn't stand for it.
THis resistance evidenced by 95 years of inaction will be increased. Once we see what it's like without the income tax, who would ever propose it? (libs) Who would support it? (some libs in safed districts). Who would vote to pass it?
THis is of course AFTER who knows how many years to renegotiate an income tax code. Katie bar the door! Everyone will want their own pet tax and/or tax break.
I digress.
Point being that after 95 years there has been sufficient resistance to prevent a sales tax on top. Increase the resistance by showing us what it's like without it.
I'd still like to see them tied - but I fear it would prevent the nrst from seeing the light of day.
If you think we'll end up with both (after 95 years of not), then by all means tell your rep. That's what it's about.
I agree with you on this point.
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.