Posted on 09/20/2006 10:32:34 AM PDT by tpaine
So I guess you are admitting that I haven't used the $600 billion number at all. The same number that you accused me an hour ago of continually using.
So, now that I proved that you made such foolish claims by posting several of them-- are you denying that you made them, or are you just misinterpreted?
"Because they know that taking that position causes all the other consequences to happen to prices, inflation, and the cost of governement, and the FairTax rate going through the roof. "
So now we see you knowing what "... the promoters of the bill and the House sponsor, and the FairTax.org website ..." believe and know (or don't). It seems to me that what you actually have done is the same thing you did in your many original vanity posts of merely offering your own opinion as some sort of iron clad fact as the only possible interpretation.
As I told you a year or more ago when you did that, that's nonsense. Why should anyone take your obviously and admittedly biased view (which lacks any factual backup) as anything resembling correct information? You said you prefer the income tax (though initially pretending otherwise) and have no economic studies to show that the income tax offers any benefits of the FairTax.
Of course Linder's not going to answer it. Why should he. He's not an economist ... but unlike some he doesn't pretend to be. That's what economic studies are for - and there are economic studies still ongoing with the FairTax.
My belief is that takehome pay will go up to the full wage amount with no federal withholding - not counting the ER fica. I've said that before and I certainly believe that is the most rational thing since both competition and existing wage agreements will mandate that. As I think you know most government wages are covered by contracts with bargaining organizations.
See #113.
I see that you DON'T really know what it means. I suggest you look it up.
If they have a brain, they know. It is simple math.
Yes, I prefer continued improvement of the current system over a cockamamie scheme that I believe will hurt our country. And, we've actually achieved significant incremental improvements over the past 6 years while ya'll discuss your Grand and Unworkable Tax Plans that are not going to happen. You have your head stuck in the sand.
So, those of us that support incremental reform, and work for these candidates to get elected to cut taxes, are the people that are responsible for our great economic recovery. Ya'll are content to spin yarns about freedom, and IRS oppression, and meanwhile we're getting things done and tax rates cut.
I'd say it's like you guys are sitting waiting for the Lotto to happen, and we're just going to work and earning the reform piece by piece.
Your Lotto ticket is not going to ever be the winner. Conservative people don't like radical unprovable cockamamie schemes.
Try and keep up, I've already answered 113 a long time ago, in 115 and 117.
Your 'football terms' post is proof positive that you've been reduced to spamming the thread. -- Thanks..
You claimed previously:
The FairTax would create an entirely new government entitlement program-- the prebate.
No, as it's not an entitlement.. The big difference is that every citizen would get a rebate for taxes paid on ordinary living expenses on food/shelter, etc...
I have given my thoughts on what should be done to cleanup the present system. Just because I don't think potentially blowing up the greatest eceonmic engine the world has ever seen is a great idea does not make me an enemy of tax reform...
Your typical 'blowing up' hype, along with football metaphors, as above, pretty well tell the tale of what you see as an enemy..
You'll have to come up with a better argument than that, and you could start by showing how the FairTax flaws I commented on above are incorrect.
I'll grant that the proposed fairtax has many flaws.. Will you admit that you exaggerate those flaws? -- And, - that you haven't really told us what is the basis for your opposition to cleaning up the income tax/SS withholding mess?
The post you're quoting from was:
"Actually the effective FairTax rate - the rate people actually pay - for most taxpayers will be considerably less than even the 23% ti rate presently in the bill (which may be reduced by the time of passage of the bill anyway to 19% or so)."
And that is an example for a particular average taxpayer with a specific income tax rate and a specific effective FairTax rate - and not any sort of a generalization (as you try to pretend) into a statement that I've said (as you claim) such about all taxpayers or taxpayers in general.
You have missed the fact very clear in the post at issue that the data is for A particular taxpayer and not the average taxpayer as you've stated in your misrepresentations in several of your above posts. I'll not allow you to put words in my mouth merely because you don't understand what was said.
See #129
"... Average Taxpayer Challenge ..."
Hardly that, but merely your own misrepresentations and misunderstanding of what was posted. Covered in #129. Believe me, you've nothing to be attempting to taunt about. Nothing!!!
The definition of a rebate has already been posted several times on this thread, so give it up - "entitlement" is a different word with a different meaning ... and the prebate IS a rebate and so defined in the bill.
Wrong ... see #129.
Actually - no - you didn't answer the post but merely interpreted something else. Please stay on topic.
Some intelligent observers rightfully call it "tinkering with the tax code". And it's results always end up being questionable.
I have no idea why this thread got moved to the SBR, and my football post is not spamming the thread. I was rebutting points and adding some humor at the same time. So, your attempt to link the two things is illogical and laughable. If you want to know why the thread was moved, you should ask the moderators, I am not a moderator, and I don't know when they moved it.
The prebate is not a return of taxes paid, it is a no-strings-attached entitlement payment that would quickly be modified with social engineering to means-test, etc in vote-buying attempts.
I am not intentionally exaggerating the flaws of the FairTax. I think that it would seriously affect consumption, and therefore the ability to collect the tax. resulting in higher tax rates and then an income tax on top of the consumption tax. I do believe that.
And I do believe that a tax rate of 50% (exclusive) is closer to the truth than the 29.87% sales tax rate calculated by the FairTaxers.
And I have said what my opposition is in very plain terms, I think that what we are doing now is working and has created something that is the envy of the world. So, I don't believe russian roulette with our economy is a great idea.
The plan is fatally flawed.
Your words are clear that you expect the average taxpayer to pay less than half as many Federal taxes under the FairTax, there is no spinning them another way.
this thread isn't in the SBR, what are you talking about?
Bingo! Go to the head of the class.
">... Your words are clear that you expect the average taxpayer ... "Indeed they are and as shown in #129 they say quite a different tale than the one you attempt to relate for me by extending an example for a specific example into some generalization about "the average taxpayer".
Your attempt to misquote hasn't worked and anyone who can read would soon discover that.
Your reaction in your previous post to me illustrated exactly 'what I was talking about'.
I think I'll bow out from responding to you for awhile, - again.. I get dizzy, rhetorically speaking..
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.