Posted on 01/22/2008 3:43:13 AM PST by xcamel
I'll stop posting that graphic when the anti's stop posting lies. Based on past history, I expect I'll get plenty more chances to post it.
1) Same old pissin’ match about “inclusive vs exclusive rate” instead of “the government should or should not tax INCOME, the measure of what you provide to the economy”.
2) Class warfare about “the rich not paying as high of a percentage of their income as the poor”.
3) Concerns about the pre-bate. Seriously, it’s NOT THAT HARD TO UNDERSTAND!
Keep it up dave, but aim at the kleptocratic FTers and quote liberally (so to speak).
I used it in another thread, but mine didn’t have the ** in it.
Guess it was acceptable.
Ah, the ol’ “market competition never lowers prices” argument.
No, the seller isn’t a fool, and if he can sell his product for $98 and still make a profit while his competition tries to sell it for $100, he won’t do that, now, would he? He’d maybe miss out on that 2 bucks per sale, even if he increased his sales by 50%. That wouldn’t be smart, would it?
Then his competition, knowing that he COULD sell it for $77 and still make the same profit, wouldn’t lower HIS price to $96, etc...
Is this what you’re arguing?
Oh, I think the socialist revealed herself PLENTY when she made the class warfare argument about “percentage of income paid in taxes”.
True. A tax like the fair tax would at least be legitimate under the Constitution; unlike the current gamey contraption we call the “IRS”.
How will we stop an immigration amnesty bill?
Under the current system, there are a LOT of people who think they're GETTING MONEY FROM THE GOVERNMENT when they get their tax refund. This is because of the "pay upfront in stealth" withholding.
If you want to keep the current system, I propose we DEMAND that withholding cease, and that tax day be moved to October 31st - right before election time, you write one big check to the fedgov.
Sales tax now is NOT charged on items intended for resale.
An economist at the University of Missouri came up with a plan whereby anyone making over a certain amount of money got more votes. Will never happen, but it's a fun idea.
uh... dude... do you think businesses pay taxes now, or do they collect them from the
customer in higher prices
employee in lower wages
stock holders in lower dividends
Yes, the CONSUMER IS FOOTING THE ENTIRE BILL for the fedgov.
Read Boortz’ book and come back to argue from a point of knowledge instead of ignorance. That’s not an insult.
A simpler plan would be that only those that are tax PAYERS instead of receivers get to vote.
Bring your photo ID and your tax statement to the poll.
What about the states that don't have a ST?
Tax is theft.
FT is a tax.
FT is theft
Try < 5%
I PROMISE to have my executor resell all my stuff.
OOOOHHHHH that’s heavy duty! Tandem axles can carry quite of bit of that stuff.
PubliusMM: “The FT is deserving of closer examination, and represents, IMO, the only viable alternative to the current model yet presented.”
Fair enough (pun intended). I never meant to imply the Fair Tax is a VAT. It’s similar in some ways, but it’s not a VAT.
I’m not a Fair Tax opponent. I just don’t see how it will ever happen. Like you’ve stated, it’s an obvious tax that strikes at the heart of our politicians’ power. That’s why I think it’s a pipe dream. Pipe dreams aren’t necessarily a bad thing so long as one realizes they are just that...pure fantasy. It wouldn’t break my heart to see the income tax abolished at some point, but I’m not going to hold my breath.
No, we’re arguing that the price of Diesel is unlikely to decline at all (inclusive of course).
You wrote “This article loses all credibility with this statement. Fair Tax opposer’s are deliberately leaving out one very important fact. The Fair Tax ill eliminate the hidden/embedded 23% Corporate income taxes and associated compliance costs known as the inclusive rate. The $100 item will then cost $77 and the $23(100*.23) will be the tax rate applied externally to the $77 as the tax exclusive rate of 30%. Consequently the price will remain at $100.”
That is why I am opposed to this plan, the outright DECEPTION that is being employed.
“Consequently the price will remain at $100.” That is BALDERDASH.
For every dollar I get back from Income Tax Witholding, FICA witholdings AND the the money I save on reduced cost of products due to corporate taxes coming out, I MUST PAY THE SAME AMOUNT IN SALES TAXES BECAUSE BY DEFINITION, THIS IS REVENUE NEUTRAL!!!
Stop the deception.
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.