Posted on 12/16/2008 4:58:35 PM PST by Man50D
The most compelling messages to elected officials are those in your own words, not just some cookie-cutter form letter. So please take a moment to craft a personal note about the FairTax. And remember, regardless of whomever you voted for in the general election, we all need to make Mr. Obama into a FairTax supporter, so please be courteous in your message about the FairTax.
In terms of talking points about how the FairTax can save our economy, you can view our detailed talking points or look below for some key points to highlight:
Rescue the homeowner and you rescue the economy The FairTax will end the harmful practice of withholding taxes from paychecks, and millions of Americans will see a huge boost in their take home pay--enough to save their homes and pay mortgage bills.
A $10 trillion dollar stimulus program funded with private investments Economists say the FairTax will attract literally trillions of dollars into our economy from offshore. That means new jobs right here in America (a point I know you readily appreciate), higher wages and a stock market that goes up instead of down.
Bring Back the "Made in America" Label The FairTax ends the retail price disadvantage American producers suffer under the income tax system. The income tax system adds up to 20% to the price of American products and that chases our manufacturing and service industries offshore. The FairTax gives American companies--and jobs--a fair chance.
Our economy works when wage earners prosper The FairTax makes our economy works again and restores consumer confidence by putting more money in wage earners' pockets. It attacks the problem at the base of the pyramid where average people live--not at the pinnacle. It ends the tax disincentives to upward mobility, savings, investment and capital formation.
(Excerpt) Read more at secure2.convio.net ...
Let me shorten it up for you.
Sucker!
The poor, the really poor, live in subsidized housing, get medical assistance, food stamps, and get their utility bills paid all or in part. How much tax does the poverty level person pay on those necessitites?
OH! THEY DON"T PAY FOR THEM!
How big is your gimmie check gonna be?
In return, you get to pick up the taxes on everthing you need (as in matter of life-or-death need>) food, shelter, medicine, and energy.
Imagine paying 30% more because your wife needs Chemo--on one income 'cause she is too sick to work. You won't even be able to afford to die, (30% more on the box and the planting).
But it won't get rid of the death tax, either.
But if you can't get through the comments, how'd you read the bill?
The bill is organized, cogent, and logical.
OTOH, your post was random and ignorant.
To wit: you think that things will cost more under the nrst [in your example it was medical expenses iirc.] That's just plain wrong. But ignorance can be cured.
You are - via myopia - either mistaking that the nrst is a replacement [as opposed to an addition] or you are purposely omitting that from your posts.
It can be easily shown that things cost less under the nrst. Those who think otherwise are comparing today's pretax prices with tomorrow's post nrst prices.
Well, at least something about this scam is.
To wit: you think that things will cost more under the nrst [in your example it was medical expenses iirc.] That's just plain wrong.
You are right, it was too long. Someone who has to pay for expensive and life saving medical procedures and/or medication is going to pay more tax than someone who doesn't. DUH.
Follow that so far?
They will have to do so out of reduced income, as well. (If you are that sick, it is tough to put in a full workday). So a greater proportion of the income of someone so burdened will have to go to taxes than for someone who is healthy and does not require those extraordinary medical expenditures in order to stay alive.
Considering that medical costs rose at two to three times the rate of inflation for the last decade or more, I really do not put much faith in your assertion they will go down because the way taxes are collected changes. Maybe tort reform would help.
So what is the average "poverty level" amount for health care, anyway? How much does someone on the dole spend on that? (wait, I'll answer that: NOTHING! WE PAY FOR IT!)
Housing? Squat! It is TAXPAYER subsidized.
Food? STAMPS!
Heat? SUBSIDIZED!
In short, we pick up the tab, they don't spend squat and your check isn't going to be as big as you think!
But you are going to create another department of the Government to issue payments, track household sizes, address changes, births, deaths, to issue the payments, (in short, the census on steroids) and another to track down fraud.
Maybe we should call it the Department of Pie!
GOvernment isn't going to get any smaller, and that just means it will cost more, no matter how the money is collected. They might save a bunch, though when they only have to change one or two numbers to raise the tax.
Riiiiiight....
Merry Christmas. If you ever want to discuss/compare income tax system with consumption tax systems, let me know.
Duh is right. How old are you? Silly me, thinking a thread about the Fair Tax would be about how the fair tax nrst would treat things compared to the income tax.
What you're talking about - who knows.
FYI if you do compare "expensive and life saving medical procedures and/or medication" under each system, both the medical procedures and the medication will cost less under the nrst.
I'm a great-grandfather.
I have seen bullsh*t scams sold as pie-in the sky, two chickens in every pot, peace in our time, yadda yadda yadda.
The end result isn't cheaper.
The end result has always been bigger government.
Bigger government costs more. (just in case you had not figured that out for yourself).
I agree the present system leaves a lot to be desired, at least for the 60% of us who even pay income tax, but believe it or not, it can be replaced with something even worse.
Get the 16th repealed, rein in the government (something close to Constitutional bounds would be nice), and the carping about how the money is collected will be moot because the government won't need to collect so d@mned much.
In the meantime, go to Canada and see how that consumption tax feels, they charge tourists the taxes too, so you can feel the pain as a visitor while you are shopping.
Believe me, the taxes will more than make up for any savings you might think you'll make by cutting prices, (if that ever happens).
Yep. Silly you.
I guess you couldn't handle all the words.
My point was that the "fair tax" will kick the people who suffer the most hardship hardest.
That if the "fair tax" did not tax necessities: food, shelter (primary residence), energy, and medical care, then there would be no need to issue a 'prebate' check.
That the prebate is only a Socialist selling point where everyone think they are getting money from the government--just like the idiots who crow about refund checks, who do not seem to realize it is their money they loaned interest-free all year they are getting back.
That the Agency which issues prebates will have to track every person, every household who gets a check on a month-to-month basis in order to issue prebates. NO WAY that is going to be cheap, and it will require another agency, which means more government, and more intrusion into our lives, not less.
If you can't see this, you don't want to look.
Merry Christmas.
That is meaningless because it has not been established what your pay would be if the FairTax were passed. Boortz makes a case that money now deducted from your paycheck for taxes is not yours, but is your tax burden incurred from work that is assumed by your employer.
Once taxes are decoupled from work, there is no justification for your employer to pay the additional amount to compensate for the tax incurred. In other words, according to Boortz, your current take home pay could well remain the same after the FairTax as it was under the income tax. The difference is that under the income tax, the tax obligation is met for most wage earners through deductions, while under the FairTax your take home pay might well remain the same but your tax obligation has not been met.
The number of filers that itemizes is about 1 in 4.
When I have taken the standard deduction rather than itemize its because I pay less tax using the standard deduction.
Yes - I would like no prebate also. But the alternative is not attractive either. You would have politicians deciding what is "necessitiess" instead of the individual making that decision.
BTW the words are no problem - it's the randomness of thought. It's nonsensical. Are you senile? Perhaps, perhaps not. But it seems so by your posts. Can you follow a single thought or are a gazillion things shooting out of your mouth at once always?
You are too old, mypopic, "set in your ways" to see anything new. I applaud your efforts to make government smaller. Keep it up. I will too. In the meantime, try being civil.... and stop wondering why you're treated like such an ahole.
mypopic? Yeah. That's why I am discussing this with you on this computer.
it's the randomness of thought. It's nonsensical.
Are you senile?
Perhaps, perhaps not.
But it seems so by your posts.
Hey, it isn't my fault you can't follow the train of thought.
Sad though, that someone who cannot consider multiple aspects of a problem simultaneously is trying to tell people what is a good plan for letting the Government loot their savings and payroll (only this time it will be after they get that impressive paycheck).
Can you follow a single thought or are a gazillion things shooting out of your mouth at once always?
I never said a word. I typed it, so my mouth was not even a party to the exchange.
BUT
You never answered my question, here paraphrased:
Considering that people living at the poverty level are heavily subsidized, and that their actual out of pocket expenditure for 'the necessities' (food, housing, medical care, energy) is near zero, how much is the check going to be?
New question: How can the Government calculate the average poverty level amount people will spend on the necessities without defining what the necessities are?
(Hey, you brought up the bit about the government defining what is necessary).
Still waiting for an answer to the first, thought I'd throw in the second.
I applaud your efforts to make government smaller. Keep it up. I will too.
Well good, at least we agree on something.
Merry Christmas, FRiend. Good bantering with you.
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.