Shock and awe not only for Iraqis {The "Fair" tax cometh}

WorldNetDaily ^ | 4/16/2003 | By Joan Veon

[lewislynn]

Zon says:

With the NRST if a person doesn't want to pay the tax they can choose to not buy the item -- and they can still get a check every month to cover the tax up to the poverty level.

Principled says:

The REBATE is not welfare, as welfare is transferred from other individuals. A REBATE is money already paid.

You people need to get your stories straight.

[lewislynn]

I'm still waiting to see your math on how prices are reduced 20, 30, 40%...

[k2blader]

There is a huge difference between a national retail sales tax and a "Value Added Tax."

Count me among the confused...

[iconoclast]

Bump for a later read.

[lewislynn]

You're the one person on the tax threads that has, by far, most discredited themselves. You're the undisputed champion, lewislynn.

Thanks I'll wear that with a badge of honor since not one of you has ever been able to refute any fact I've presented...of course refuting a fact would be an oxymoron wouldn't it.

If you want to see discredited I suggest you re-read your own words from this thread. I posted them once to your cohort but I'll do it again in case someone missed it.

Zon:

With the NRST if a person doesn't want to pay the tax they can choose to not buy the item -- and they can still get a check every month

--------

It's not a welfare check. It's a way to recover the tax that must be paid on necessities, like food and medicine,

Uh huh, so receiving a tax rebate from the taxpayers for taxes never paid isn't welfare?

And since no person has to report their income to the government the government has no tax incentive to snoop around in a person's private financial affairs.

Gee, the lies and deceit just keep piling on. Were you saying something about discredited? What fool would believe the government would write any law where they lost control of your source of income?...Sorry did I just call you a fool?

`SEC. 903. WAGES TO BE REPORTED TO SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION.

`(a) IN GENERAL- Employers shall submit such information to the Social Security Administration as is required by the Social Security Administration to calculate social security benefits under title II of the Social Security Act, including wages paid, in a form prescribed by the Secretary. A copy of the employer submission to the Social Security Administration relating to each employee shall be provided to each employee by the employer.

`(b) WAGES- For purposes of this section, the term `wages' means all cash remuneration for employment (including tips to an employee by third parties provided that the employer or employee maintains records documenting such tips) including self-employment income; except that such term shall not include--

`(1) any insurance benefits received (including death benefits);

`(2) pension or annuity benefits received;

`(3) tips received by an employee over $5,000 per year; and

`(4) benefits received under a government entitlement program (including social security benefits and unemployment compensation benefits).

`(c) SELF-EMPLOYMENT INCOME- For purposes of subsection (b), the term `self-employment income' means gross payments received for taxable property or services minus the sum of--

`(1) gross payments made for taxable property or services (without regard to whether tax was paid pursuant to section 101 on such taxable property or services), and

`(2) wages paid by the self-employed person to employees of the self-employed person.

I've got to stop discrediting myself here.

[Principled]

it's been shown to you a hundred times. You know where to look for ANY of the massive amounts of research showing such. Remember all the LLMs in taxation and the Economics professors and all the studies that have been done that show, even under the most conservative guidelines, a 20-40% reduction in consumer prices...

Oh yeah, we're supposed to take your word for it and ignore the vast research done by experts in the field.

Dolt

BTW if anyone wants the links, they're easy to find. I can help.

[Principled]

A national retail sales tax is a tax levied ONE TIME ONLY, that time being the point of final retail consumption.

A Value Added Tax (VAT)is a tax that levies additional tax at every production step, including the final sale. BTW, the flat income tax is a VAT.

Look here for lots of quick info.

[Principled]

From here

: All goods and services already contain the embedded costs of the current tax system in their prices. When these embedded taxes are removed, prices will come down. Dr. Dale Jorgenson, Chairman of the Economics Department at Harvard University, has projected a producer price reduction of 20 to 30% in just the first year after adoption of the FairTax. Dr. Jorgenson also estimated that service prices would decline by 25% because of the repeal of the income tax. In addition, the FairTax will lower compliance costs by more than 90%, and the removal of these costs will force prices down even lower.

And why is your opinion "fact" but Dr. Jorgensen is wrong???

[k2blader]

Thank you very much for the information and link!

[Principled]

Look at the qualifications of those at the bottom of page 1...

here

Arthur P. Hall, PhD Senior Economist The Tax Foundation in testimony to House Ways & Means Committee
David R. Burton and Dan R. Mastromarco LLM Tax
Lawrence J. Kotlikoff Dr. Dale Jorgensen, PhD Harvard School of Econ...

...and the list goes on.

Please tell us all again just why your silly little opinion should mean anything when measured against opinions of those experts?

Sorry if I've made you cry.

[Principled]

Here is what the experts believe.

Take a look at the footnotes. THose are experts that say prices will fall.

[Principled]

You're welcome. Kick around http://www.fairtax.org and http://www.salestax.org for a while. Also check CATS.

[rwfromkansas]

Can someone explain what this article is about?

The Fair Tax.......not what this article talks about...calls for a 23 percent NRST. Also, the other matter raised, the Senate cutting of Bush's tax cut, does not call for a NRST.

I did not read the entire article, but I am not going to waste 10 minutes reading an article by an author who can't make their point. This author appears to have been smoking pot when writing.

This is truly one crappy piece of writing....absolutely dreadful beyond comprehension. I re-read the beginning and Joan actually is saying the Bush tax cut would install a VAT!

This article needs to be a lesson for us all. Don't down the gin when trying to get your column in by deadline.

[k2blader]

Thanks again. :-)

[k2blader]

Your post seems to sum up why I was so confused when trying to read the article!

[Principled]

Yes, rw, the article is a steaming pile that sparked the "Fair Tax" debate just cuz the words came up.

The article is a real dung heap, huh?

[Principled]

From the National Taxpayer's Union (NTU) just yesterday...

Recently NTU endorsed one such bill, HR 25, which would replace federal income taxes and the personal payroll tax with a retail-level consumption tax.

HR 25 is the "Fair Tax" bill in question.

[agarrett]

The top 5 pay more than 96% of the income tax.

  While true, this is highly misleading. The problem is limiting your view to the income tax alone - that is far from the only tax we pay. To take one very obvious example, for most wage earners, the social security tax is our biggest burden - much more so than the income tax. And that tax is regressive - and it only applies to wages, making it even more regressive. But, if you just look at income tax, it doesn't figure into your calculations at all.

  When you look at our tax burden overall, it turns out we're already pretty close to a flat tax. Everyone winds up paying fairly close to the same percentage of their income in taxes. Now, we take about the most complicated route possible to get there ;-) but we do get there. It is entirely unreasonable to simply look at one tax, in isolation, and declare it is unfair, and must change.

Drew Garrett

[lewislynn]

BTW if anyone wants the links, they're easy to find. I can help.

What about it? Give the links big shot.

And why is your opinion "fact" but Dr. Jorgensen is wrong???

Because unlike your hired economist I can show the numbers.

Please tell us all again just why your silly little opinion should mean anything when measured against opinions of those experts?

It's not an opinion, it's fact.

THose are experts that say prices will fall.

LOL. I didn't say they wouldn't fall, they may or may not...maybe someone will increase profits, but it won't be any 20, 30, 40%...

Show me the numbers, either yours or theirs, not lip service or irrelevant links.

Try this one: 33.33% tax on 60% profit = 20%...In other words to reduce the price 20% at a 33.33% tax rate they first would have to have a 60% profit or gain...A 25% tax rate would need an 80% profit or gain to meet your one pinhead economist's absurd, if not imbecilic estimation.

Sorry if I've made you cry.

Make me cry?...HA-- I'm laughing my ass off at your utter stupidity for not only falling for it but trying to defend and sell it....

[Zon]

Can someone explain what this article is about?

Probably not.