Posted on 08/28/2007 4:39:18 PM PDT by Bigun
Funny... I always though that was what we had the Second Amendment for.......
Another thing that bothers me is how much time will Congress spend fighting over and hashing this whole thing out. The ending bill will look nothing like the original proposal when they are through with it. I think with a war going on I’d rather not have Congress tied up in this and making a mess out of things that causes budget shortfalls when the welfare of our troops and security of our nation are at stake.
It’s all ass-backwards anyway. We need a President that is going to focus on cutting government spending, so the government needs less revenue from tax payers, period.
The unfunded liabilities are a part of the discussion because #1) FT will replace the SS payroll tax but does nothing to address the liability of the system...other than to say that it is “revenue nuetral” which means nothing when this proposal addresses only half the problem with the SS (quite conveniently I may add) and #2) check it out or FT people like to say “if you would study the problem a little more closely” then you would know and #3) despite the SSA low level of benefits, (my Mom & Dad paid into the system for 50 years, which when amortized at a modest interest rate would have yielded them 4-5 million in savings, my Mom gets $1100 per month in this grand “social security”) the benefits to me will have be reduced out of necessity for survival of the system, and my daughter gets to contribute her share for 50 years and FOR WHAT? NOTHING! And FT is so SHALLOW it ignores this problem and says its “revenue nuetral”? and that it doesn’t have anything to do with it? That’s politics for you! ...and #4) even if I’m off by 20% the unfunded liabilities would still be some 22 trillion OR see for yourself at www.socialsecurity.org/catoplan/. I can’t believe that this is not an issue to any true tax reformer!!
Something has to happen. The tax code is just too much. Who can make sense of it.
Oh...I almost forgot...WHY would I want to PAY for prebate distributions if I didn’t have to? (Ignore that question if you want to)
That is true! Not even the people who are charged with making sense of it can do so.
Not so long a go an organization organized an effort whereby 50 people from across the country called the IRS with a simple question (all 50 asked the exact same question) and they all received a different answer. No two the same. THAT ought to tell us something!
1. A tax was bad that required a large bureaucracy for administration.
I ask you, which of these are NOT true of our current tax system?
“Put the government in charge of the Sahara Desert and in 5 years there will be a shortage of sand”...Milton Friedman
The FairTax is not an entitlement reform bill but a tax bill. Certainly the SS/MC mess should be straightened out but under the present tax system it will merely crash and burn with many of the potential recipients (such as your Mom) receiving far less - or even nothing. The FairTax provides the funding for these other (SS/MC) laws while we as voters hopefully pressure our congressmen enough to bring some realism into the entitlement picture (I’d like to see them both eliminated).
Actually another thing under the present tax system that robs your Mom and others similarly situated is the government-driven inflation which intentionally boosts inflation by just enough to not be alarming but at a continual rate - making each person’s wealth/income worth less. It’s the most pernicious sort of hidden tax.
But you’re right, the FairTax does not reform either SS or MC nor should it since those are governed by separate laws that are not tax laws. It does not however "ignore" the problem since it does provide funding for the lousy entitlements we have while we (hopefully) work to correct them by modifying the laws that now govern them. I think that's far better than letting them go bankrupt while many are dependent on them, but perhaps you don't agree.
If it’s the law you DO have to pay them ... just as with paying the income taxes ... which is presently the law.
Most of the true economic studies that have been shown on these thread over the last 5 or so years clearly show that under the FairTax prices will remain steady or perhaps drop a bit but that individual purchasing power will greatly increase. To find out more about the effect on the real estate market (quite beneficial, actually) you might check into the FairTax website. There are several discussions there relating to real estate.
They can’t go bankrupt because these IOUs have to be paid, or the US economy will crash just like the Soviet Union which could not pay its bills. We WILL pay the bill with or without Fair Tax. So how does the FT effect this outcome...guess we better investigate that BEFORE we make this change.
That totally avoids the question....WHY would you take a stand that this is the best for the US taxpayer...prebates? If we wanted smaller government that costs less to run, then if we chose a consumption tax, why use a prebate system that costs us more than would otherwise be the case? What would the FT rate need to be if we opted for the savings?
The FairTax is revenue neutral - meaning that it supplies the same amount of money as at present. It get those funds from a broader base that the income tax.
As I’ve said before I’d like to see SS and MC both eliminated and the FairTax rate lowered. Even if that were done, I believe the prebate offers some genuine benefits to those lower income taxpayers and it does keep the tax from being as regressive as the income tax.
I’ve heard economists, my husband among them, who have many serious reservations about the Fair Tax and it’s very possible negative affects on the economy. Fair Tax supporters do not even begin to have all the answers to many serious questions and they have never met a bothersome question about the implementation of the Fair Tax that they couldn’t quickly sweep under the rug. Fair Tax supporters base their conclusions on some wild notions, like - Congress will never tinker with their sacred document, the day the Fair Tax passes all the prices are going to magically go down and the IRS, by another name, will suddenly smell sweet.
Of all times to tinker with the revenue for our national budget, war time is not the time. The welfare of our troops and the security of our nation is at stake and a budget shortfall could be more than just disastrous for our economy. We need Congress and our President to concentrate on cutting things out of the budget and using our tax dollars wisely.
Well said....as the last bill funding the troops contained 4800 “earmarks”
I’ve noted that those opposing the FairTax often use the “sky is falling” scare tactic to try to emotionally charge something that is not really emotional at all. there are some very clear economic studies that show the beneficial effects of the FairTax.
The “condescending attitude” you mention I think is more often among opponents along with cursing, personal attacks and attempts to belittle anyone who supports the FairTax (and must, therefore - in their view - be somehow mentally deficient). It’s hard to think of anything more condescending than that.
Perhaps if you’d present the reservations you mention they could be addressed, but the sweeping negative comments (”... wild notions ... sweep under the rug ... magically go down ... sacred document ...”, etc.) you make don’t really indicate you’re interested in finding out any specifics at all or even that you’re well versed in the subject.
I believe you also miss the point that your desire to not “tinker with the revenue” will be ignored by congress just as it is each year since under the present tax system there are myriad ways in which the politicians can “fudge” things and hid or foist off the blame on others. With the FairTax, “the blame” for setting a particular tax rate is squarely upon the congressional shoulders and if we don’t like it we can vote the buggers out by voting someone else in.
You’re certainly welcome to your opinion WRT the FairTax but so should I and the hundreds of thousands - or even millions - who support it.
I haven't missed the fact that fair tax supporters keep saying the FairTax is revenue neutral, but that doesn't make it so. Some economists find flaws in the FairTax studies. The studies don't take any tax evasion into account. If any legislative adjustments are made, such as exemptions for health care, then it will no longer be revenue neutral.
Perhaps if you’d present the reservations you mention they could be addressed
I presented a few reservations and you waved them away with some rhetoric and told me to go look at a website.
you make don’t really indicate you’re interested in finding out any specifics at all or even that you’re well versed in the subject.
THIS is the condescension I speak of - if I don't accept your rhetoric as an answer and grab my pompoms to cheer for the FairTax, then you tell me I'm not interested and well-versed in the subject.
I believe you also miss the point that your desire to not “tinker with the revenue” will be ignored by congress just as it is each year since under the present tax system there are myriad ways in which the politicians can “fudge” things and hid or foist off the blame on others. With the FairTax, “the blame” for setting a particular tax rate is squarely upon the congressional shoulders and if we don’t like it we can vote the buggers out by voting someone else in.
I believe you miss the point. If Congress didn't waste so damn much money in the first place we wouldn't be paying so damn much tax and our tax system wouldn't be the problem it is now. Vote them out for continuing to waste our tax dollars.
You’re certainly welcome to your opinion WRT the FairTax but so should I and the hundreds of thousands - or even millions - who support it.
Whooptie do! Millions of people support liberal Democrats. Should I go jump off the cliff with them?
In your post #560, I responded to the general concerns you voiced by trying to direct you to a place where you could find detailed discussions of those areas. Rather than doing this you chose to brush it off with the comment your husband was an economist and had concerns (without any specific indication of what those concerns might be - or your specific concerns either). Comments such as "... don't take tax evasion into account ..." are vague, general, unhelpful and are more in the nature of a politically motivated attack rather than a specific concern.
To respond to that vague charge, the FairTax in all of the economic studies I've seen which show it to be revenue neutral start from a base of the same percentage of evasion as the present system as they use the NIPA tables which encompass the present evasion (which even the IRS admits is quite high). In fact this is probably much too high as evading the consumption tax as specified in the bill is FAR more difficult that evasion under the income tax since there are fewer collection points to control and more resources available to do so.
I'd direct you a current economic writing that discusses revenue neutrality plus some of the impact of the FairTax in the real estate area. There's also a discussion of some of the general objections such as some you raise in this location.
For more on the real estate area here's a detailed discussion of three separate areas of real estate.
If you'd spend the time to digest some of the specifics in these links, perhaps we could then discuss things further. These writings are not "rhetoric" as you claim but some specifics of the economic impact of the FairTax in some areas.
Certainly I agree that congress should be "tarred and feathered" for their economic profligacy but even if they were and the income tax were retained, that still leaves us with a tax system that is overbearing, overly expensive to operate, and overly intrusive on individual privacy. The best hope of addressing these concerns is, I think, the FairTax. It's not JUST the amount of tax presently but the method of collecting and enforcing that collection that must change since reducing the expenditures does nothing to remove these other objections.
If, after digesting these writings directed at some of your areas of concern, you have some specific objections - let's discuss them.
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.