Replies

The FT is not tied to the repeal of the 16th which keeps the door open for sales and income tax in a few short years.

The FT re-taxes previously taxed savings - especially retirement savings.

A bona fide objection which can be addressed in write up. There is also a big boon to other savers who have money tied up in qualified accounts such as IRA's.

Because of the above the FT is especially burdensome on those near or in retirement.

Only those with after tax savings. In my experience managing retirement savings most of it is in pre tax dollars with a large contingent income tax liablity awaiting.

The FT has a socialist wealth-redistribution component - the prebate.

A bad thing, granted. But it removes the EITC and it pacifies the liberals and class warriors.

At 30% the FT rate is too high, especially when it only covers the federal portion of taxation. Add in the state and local taxes and the rate approaches 50%!

What states are charging 20% tax rates? Their citizens should pay more attention to local lawmakers. 30% is high but when you consider that prices should fall by about 10% or more and that paychecks should go up by 20% or so it is a wash.

The FT fails to address the real problem (spending) and, as such, is tantamount to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

The FT makes no pretense about reducing the cost of gov't other than to make it more visible to the average taxpayer and make him angry every time he buys something.

Free Republic is just too slow today. I may take a pass until tomorrow.

That just isn't true. The FT defunds the IRS, destroys its records and makes a point of calling for the repeal of the 16th amendment. No FTer is in favor of passing the legislation without subsequently removing the 16th.

Re-read what I wrote and then re-read what you wrote. The word "subsequently" in your sentence is the most telling.

When the FT is contingent on the repeal of the 16th (I.e. the day the 16th dies is the day the FT is implemented) then one hurdle has been cleared.

A bona fide objection which can be addressed in write up. There is also a big boon to other savers who have money tied up in qualified accounts such as IRA's.

Sorry, but anyone who saved after-tax money is going to be double-taxed. Anyone who saved pre-tax money expecting to be spending at a lower rate (usually 15% long-term capital gains) will be taxed more than expected reducing their ultimate spending power.

Only those with after tax savings. In my experience managing retirement savings most of it is in pre tax dollars with a large contingent income tax liablity awaiting.

See above. The liability is almost always expected to be long-term cap-gains which come in at half of the FT rate.

A bad thing, granted. But it removes the EITC and it pacifies the liberals and class warriors.

I don't care about pacifying liberals. I care about doing the right thing. Wealth redistribution is most definitely not the right thing

What states are charging 20% tax rates? Their citizens should pay more attention to local lawmakers. 30% is high but when you consider that prices should fall by about 10% or more and that paychecks should go up by 20% or so it is a wash.

People should learn to do math. I live in CA so I'll use that as an example.

First I have an 8.25% sales tax rate which is over 1/3 of the 20% mentioned. On top of that I have an income tax that typically averages about 7-8% (it tops out at 10.5% IIRC), a property tax which is 1.25% of the purchase price of my home (In my case that works out to about 2.5% of my pay, but I'm way on the low end on that one) and a wide variety of other taxes (gas, phone, cable, etc.) and fees (auto registration, smog, waste disposal, etc.) that really add up when you think about it. I'll guess around 2% at the low end.

20% was on the conservative side.

As for the rest, nobody believes the fairy tale about increased wages and reduced prices. Those two can't happen at the same time. At least not to the degree promised by FT advocates.

The FT makes no pretense about reducing the cost of gov't other than to make it more visible to the average taxpayer and make him angry every time he buys something.

Then as I said it is no more valuable than chewing gum to solve the problem.