Replies

Ok File, so you think a family of four taking in about $5000 a year in Rebate checks is not going to be spending $20,000 in retail?

You really do live for the straw men, don't you?

Is that practiced ignorance or does it come naturally?

Wait. Don't answer that. I already know.

Meanwhile, the point you are dodging still stands. There will be some people who collect more in prebates than they pay in taxes.

You cannot deny that.

Since that is true the program becomes socialist. Period.

Please don’t lecture people with your sophmoric views on what socialism is. Not only is it annoying but it drives more intelligent and refined readers away.

Which is, of course, why you are still here. . .

Armed revolution and anarchy? Under the Constitution? Let’s see, there are hundreds of ways to redress grievances under the political system that operates in the USA. Armed revolution in the USA can therefore only be for anarchists.

You really should try to educate yourself. Even once would be nice.

Yeah, reference to repeal of the 16th is included in the present bill. But there are better ways to tie them together. That’s the last major part of the FairTax legislation that is still in work.

And yet in the years you FT idiots have been spouting none of that has been incorporated.

I wonder why?

As for your crude and incorrect analogy to the FairTax being just another way to shoot, stab, bludgeon etc. in retardo, I think you need to learn an elementary fact and that is there are going to be taxes to pay whether you like them or not. But then again your interest is in anarchy so it figures you wouldn’t be serious to begin with.

Absolutely there will be taxes, but your inability to conceptualize lower ones is at issue here.

The point we were discussing, since you clearly can't remember post to post, was that the FT does nothing to address spending which is a far more significant problem than collection.

You see Filo, a piece of legislation, especially an inspired piece of legislation like the FairTax H.R. 25, is worked and reworked until the bugs are out. One can work it or one can throw spitfalls from the peanut gallery like you do.

I threw those "spitballs" over a year ago in a letter to the legislation's author.

If he cared to fix the problems he would have.

Instead the legislation remains effectively unchanged, re-taxing savings, incorporating socialism and encouraging a two-tiered taxation system.

As for the authority to distribute rebates, it is certainly within the authority of the Constitution to return taxes to people in a fair and equitable manner. The fairest means would be to give each qualified American the same amount up to the poverty line. That is not socialism, that is nothing more than a refund up to a limit.

And yet you cannot cite the portion of The Constitution that authorizes this, can you?

Nope. You can't. There isn't one.

And that goes back to your idea that a significant number of Americans are going to be paying less NRST than they take in a Rebate check. Once again ask yourself how many people are going to be living off others while hoarding Rebate checks? Not many is the answer, not enough to waste anyone’s time with. And even in the remote possibility that someone is found to have hoarded Rebate checks and not have spent a dime on NRST, then those hoarded checks converted to cash will eventially be spent.

When and where in your addled mind did this become about hoarding rebate checks?

Let's make it easy for you:

If a person is living off of the prebate (i.e. they are effectively on welfare) then they will be spending only their prebate.

Their "taxes" on that will be, at best, 30% of the checks.

Those people will be receiving money back from the government above and beyond what they pay in taxes.

In fact, anyone not "earning" a bit over twice the poverty line will be benefitting from the pre-bates to the point where they will not be paying any taxes: the prebate will cover all of their tax liability.

How many people live at 3x the poverty line or below?

What percentage of Americans?

Depending on where you get your numbers at least 40% of Americans will fall under this number.

As always, nearly half of the population won't be paying any taxes but will be receiving benefits.

That is wealth redistribution.

It is socialism and it is also unconstitutional.

The transparency of the FairTax is in the provision that the NRST rate will be voted on each year by Congress and signed into law by the President. That means each member of Congress will vote to raise the rate, lower the rate or keep it the same.

Which is no different than the level of transparency in the current budgetary process.

You are not in any position to say that the SCOTUS in FDR’s time was under duress and therefore the Social Security is invalid.

Sure I am. I'm literate and intelligent and I've studied history. . . that makes one of us in this conversation.

Understand this. It is the law whether you like it or not. It is not invalid. It may be bad law but it is what it is and you are subject to it. The only thing you are legally allowed to do is to work to change it, period.

As if you've developed any credibility to tell me what I can and cannot do.

DISCLOSURE: This flame exchange is performed not because I enjoy it or relish in performing it, but as a forum service for readers and lurkers to ‘out FairTax bashers’ and their vapid shallow nonlogic means of trying to convince people that they have an argument.

And here I thought it was just your uncontrollable desire to put your idiocy and ignorance out there for public consumption.

You can understand, I'm sure, where I got that from.

Meanwhile, the point you are dodging still stands. There will be some people who collect more in prebates than they pay in taxes. You cannot deny that.

Oh really? Because you say it? Time to take your meds Filo.

Since that is true the program becomes socialist. Period.

Ditto the previous.

And yet in the years you FT idiots have been spouting none of that has been incorporated. I wonder why?

No need to wonder Filo. You haven't read the latest version of the legislation. It doesn't mean it won't be changed though. And for you to call anyone an idiot is a tad beyond your own status, eh Filo Fredo?

The point we were discussing, since you clearly can't remember post to post, was that the FT does nothing to address spending which is a far more significant problem than collection.

For the upteenth time for your poor memory, the FairTax is Tax Law, not Spending Law.

And yet you cannot cite the portion of The Constitution that authorizes this, can you? Nope. You can't. There isn't one.

Sure there is Filo. It's crystal clear. Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes. Now the words 'lay' and 'collect' are not redundant. Lay means to establish for implementation and administration. The FairTax simply states that all RETAIL purchases AFTER spending beyond the poverty line shall be taxed at a rate set by Congress each year. This tax and how it is administered is completely Constitutional without the 16th Amendment by design.

How this 'taxation on spending above poverty' is administered can be done in a number of ways.

1. Honor system. People can say they spent more than the poverty level and volunteer to pay the NRST (never would work).
2. Smart cards can be issued to all qualified individuals and families to monitor their purchases (never happen and illegal intrusion).
3. Rebate every American the tax up to the poverty line. Yep, that will be workable using today's technology and capability. Too bad it wasn't feasible in 1913 or thereafter. We wouldn't have the 16th today.

Well Filo, that's your lesson for today.

Run along now unless of course you need to have one of your Fredo moments "I'm smart! I deserve respect!"

The prebate is an attempt to answer the objection that the Fair Tax would be a disproportionate burden on the “poor:”
“Since the poor have too spend all of their money the tax fall disproportionately on them.”
To head off that issue, the Fair Tax pays “prebates” that return taxes on monies spent up to the poverty level. Since it makes a point of NOT checking on people's income, these prebates are sent to everybody who qualifies.
There probably would be a lot of attempts at fraud with people registering dogs, goats, hamsters, and dead relatives for the prebates. How is that different from the fraud in the current system?
Personally, I could live without prebates. Its about time the “poor” started paying their fair share.

Yes. After-tax savings that exist when the FairTax is enacted will get taxed again when they are spent. I know its not fair, but nothing is perfect.

I don't see what you mean by “incorporating socialism and encouraging a two-tiered taxation system.” We already have much worse in the income tax. Personally, I'll be happy to see the Earned Income Tax Credit die, and the income tax replaced by a single rate sales tax.

The FairTax does not address spending. It addresses how taxes are collected and take them away from politicians as tool of “social policy.” Spending will have to addressed elsewhere. Its simply a means of creating a predictable tax environment for people and businesses to operate in and eliminating may of the perverse incentives created by the income tax.

If someone can solely live off the prebate, without fraud, well, God bless ‘em. I'm not going worry about it; as I said before there is already much worse in the income tax.

The current tax system is bludgeon in the hands of corrupt politicians, generates perverse incentives and an uncertain environment for business and allows enormous sums of money (mostly illegal) to escape taxation. It punishes (taxes) productivity.
The FairTax is a potential remedy to these issues. Its not perfect, but it probably is better than what currently exists.
It was not created to address spending, merely to be revenue neutral. Spending is different issue from the FairTax.