The People Must Demand The Fair Tax

GOPUSA ^ | August 28, 2007 | By Doug Patton

[LeGrande]

Depends on how much you spend vs how much you DON'T spend. Why would you have to pay anything on investment profits? You pay only when you spend them.

No, I would have to pay them first, when I buy the investment, before I earn anything. There will be no more investing.

[LeGrande]

The studies and calculations have been done. When in doubt, read up on a thing rather than just assume.

No you missed the point. Why would anyone invest anymore if they lose 30% of the investment up front?

[jwh_Denver]

“98% of those corrupt politicians returning to congress every election?”

I’m in awe at your brilliance. If we had good politicians then we wouldn’t be having this unfair tax problem now would we? Think about it.

[adm5]

bttt

[LeGrande]

You will not pay a sales tax on stocks or bonds

So if houses are put in corporations and I buy the stock then I don't have to pay the 23% tax? I like that idea :) Any exceptions and the fair tax starts to fall apart.

[LeGrande]

What kind of “securities” are you buying that are considered new end-user goods and services? Stocks, bonds, etc. wouldn’t be taxed under the FairTax, and neither would capital gains from their appreciation.

I can put anything in a Corp. So you are telling me that I will never have to pay another tax except for my groceries?

[LeGrande]

I don't know where you personally draw the line between benefiting and "getting slammed" but by taxing consumption people will have more power in determining how much they pay in taxes. The more they spend, the more they are taxed. Inherently people with more income tend to spend more. Consequently taxes collected will increase as income increases. Also as a result higher incomes will have a higher effective tax rate (after the prebate) but not exceeding 23%.

No higher income people spend a much smaller percentage of their income on consumables. Your premise is flawed.

[CIDKauf]

“No, I would have to pay them first, when I buy the investment, before I earn anything. There will be no more investing.” So with no more investing, what we will use all this money for....consumption? Wonder what that will do for the obesity problem!

[Hostage]

Primary housing would have to be exempt simply because nobody but the wealthy could afford to pay a 30% surtax up front on a house.

No, that's untrue.

First, the NRST (National Retail Sales Tax under the FairTax legislation) can be financed as part of the mortgage. The increase in monthly payments is more than offset by the elimination of income taxes from a homebuyer's paycheck.

Second, the NRST is applied only to new homes and those new homes will be built with materials that cost less because the manufacturers will no longer need to pass on federal taxes into the cost structure. So new homes will cost less but the price will be brought back up by adding the NRST.

The key point to keep in mind is the FairTax is a replacement tax, not a tax on a tax. It replaces all the federal taxes that are embedded in pricing now. The embedded taxes are hidden. But they will be eliminated and then replaced by the visible FairTax.

[Hostage]

Buying stock is not the same as buying a new retail product. When you buy stock, you are buying shares previously owned. Stock is not a consumer item.

So you are off here. You will no longer pay 15% capital gain on investment income because capital gain tax is repealed and eliminated under the FairTax.

You will pay a consumption tax only when you consume.

[Hostage]

The WSJ is a joke. That’s why Murdoch is buying Dow Jones News to straighten out their spoiled child that has become the WSJ.

I read the WSJ article, it was flawed and biased. The writer Bruce Bartlett has not studied the FairTax and knows very little about how it really works.

If you want to go over point by point of his article spin, let me know.

But believing the WSJ’s current crop of spoiled children writers is almost as bad as believing Dan Rather.

[Hostage]

The most recent study I've seen, by the Fairtax economist Kotlikoff, says the 23% rate isn't quite enough...

And what was Kotlikoff's estimate?

[xcamel]

Just about the time muzzys finally take over and create dhimmi-merica, because people like this have their priorities so bass-ackwards..

[Neidermeyer]

I disagree vehemently with that statement ... Are you saying that we can’t do 2 things at once? I for one think that injecting a huge dose of freedom into the USA by modifying and easing the tax and accounting burden would be a great thing... a stronger America is a good thing and will be a positive in the WOT...

[RobFromGa]

If you're convinced corruption in the federal government is so pervasive as to be beyond any hope of redemption by the people then why do you remain in the U.S.?

Wow, a typical stupid FairTax retort. Because the FairTax is infested with flaws and won't work as advertised, people who understand the flaws should leave the country?

My question to you is why you Doom and Gloom Chicken Little FairTaxers with all your talk of slavery to the IRS and your incessant whining about how horrible it is here, why don't you leave the US and start your own country and institute the FairTax there? Antarctica is available.

[xcamel]

Anything that doesn’t promote the FTN doctrine is:
Evil,
Written by Morons,
Part of the “Vast SQL Conspiracy”
People invested in the current system
blah...blah...blah... oh, and “yawn” too.

[Your Nightmare]

While, business gets a tax break for providing insurance to it employees now, it would loose that tax advantage and, to use FairTax terminology, would be punished by the FairTax for providing that benefit.

Do you think the business will "embedded" this into their prices?

[xcamel]

...anything that isn’t profit... is cost.
FTN’s don’t understand that.

[Your Nightmare]

“embed” (it’s early)

[Your Nightmare]

...anything that isn’t profit... is cost. FTN’s don’t understand that.

And... your point.