Replies

Why? Has it changed since the last time I read it?

Then you realize any form of tax on productivity is communistic.

It is still taking money from the pool of successful people and giving it free to the pool of unsuccessful people.

That is socialism.

It's taking money from anyone who decides how much and how often they want to be taxed when they choose to make a purchase. Our communist style tax system doesn't afford the taxpayer any choice. Taxing consumption is not socialism.

Under the "FairTax" the savings will be taxed (again) when spent.

My savings, such as they are, have already been taxed in full. Upon implementation of the "FairTax" they would be taxed again.

Your savings are taxed multiple times with every purchase with the embedded taxes. The short term situation of being taxed again will be more than offset by the elimination of embedded taxes, the 30% reduction in the overall tax burden and the increase in purchasing power.

For that reason alone I cannot support the FairTax as currently written.

Then you are opposing it on a fallacy.

More FT faux math.
I noticed you conveniently ignored answering my question from the previous post (Based on what data do you make such an otherwise vague and empty claim? ) with another empty remark that fails to realize the math is based on years of study by several economists. What is your answer to my original question? What facts do you base your faux math remark to refute my figures?

The FT rate is designed to be "revenue neutral." That means that the government is still stealing exactly the same amount that it always has.

Then repeal Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution that gives power to levy and collect taxes but until then there will be a tax system. It's far better to consumption than a communist supported tax on productivity.

Then you realize any form of tax on productivity is communistic.

As is any redistribution of wealth such as the prebate.

It's taking money from anyone who decides how much and how often they want to be taxed when they choose to make a purchase. Our communist style tax system doesn't afford the taxpayer any choice. Taxing consumption is not socialism.

Redistributing wealth is.

As is taxing to support socialist programs.

Your savings are taxed multiple times with every purchase with the embedded taxes. The short term situation of being taxed again will be more than offset by the elimination of embedded taxes, the 30% reduction in the overall tax burden and the increase in purchasing power.

Nonsense all around.

The government is still providing exactly the same drag on the economy, all you've done is change the shape of the anchor.

There is no reduction in tax burden. The only reduction is a slightly smaller compliance cost.

There is no increase in purchasing power.

Again, the government is taking exactly the same amount of money (productivity) out of the economy. That is what revenue neutral means.

Then you are opposing it on a fallacy.

Nope. I understand perfectly and I've already beat you down by doing the math and demonstrating the reason many months ago.

I noticed you conveniently ignored answering my question from the previous post (Based on what data do you make such an otherwise vague and empty claim? ) with another empty remark that fails to realize the math is based on years of study by several economists. What is your answer to my original question? What facts do you base your faux math remark to refute my figures?

As stated above, the tax is revenue neutral so the overall tax rate does not change. The government still swipes the same amount of productivity and all you've done is shift the burden somewhere.

Then repeal Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution that gives power to levy and collect taxes but until then there will be a tax system. It's far better to consumption than a communist supported tax on productivity.

Actually, A1S8 aside, most of the current income tax is already illegal since there is no provision for wealth redistribution and other socialist programs (Social Security, Medicare, etc.) in The Constitution.

The government is, therefore, prohibited from engaging in these programs.

If it weren't for FDR's threats to pack the SCOTUS and subsequent decisions in his favor that would be well established.