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

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

[Zon]

A personal attack prompted my personal attack, buddy.

So you're pleading monkey see, monkey do. As a guest, you "crapped" in Jim's "living room". You reacted emotionally to what another person posted rather than responding in a mature, reasoned manner.

[Zon]

I have yet to find one of you NRST zealots who do not engage in personal attacks. Everytime someone comes in and suggests an opposing opinion they are personally attacked. So get off your hypocritical high horse.

I've never made a personal attack against you. You're free to try to prove me wrong and post a quote of mine wherein I attacked you. Otherwise, correct your error.

[Zon]

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 185

Your supposed facts have been refuted more than a hundred times. Not all by one person but several people have refuted several of your supposed facts. That supposed badge you think you're wearing is an illusion.

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  157

--------

It's not a welfare check. It's a way to recover the tax that must be paid on necessities, like food and medicine, 175

Uh huh, so receiving a tax rebate from the taxpayers for taxes never paid isn't welfare? 185

You're so disingenuous. If we were to conduct a poll and asked 1,000 people that have read either H.R. 25 or the fairtax.org Web site whether they think the tax probate check is a welfare check, probably 99% of them would say it's not a welfare check. The purpose of the probate check is to cover the cost of the 23% tax on necessities up to the poverty level. To receive the monthly probate checks the head of house hold must tell the government how many people live in the household. Many wealthy people won't bother to signing up for the probate checks, especially those that value their family's privacy from an intrusive government.

Some very poor people will chose to grow their own food and use the probate check to buy things they can't grow or make. A single person living alone would receive about $70 a month. You can call it a welfare check all you want but the vast majority of people would disagree with you based on the intents and purpose of the probate checks.

Zon: 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. 157

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? 185

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

`(a) IN GENERAL- Employers shall submit such information to the Social Security

Social Security is not a tax. Taxes are revenue the government uses to operate the government and the government services are available to all citizens regardless of whether they pay income tax. Social Security is money that comes back to the person that paid into Social Security. If a person doesn't pay into their Social Security account they can't receive Social Security benefits. That's one point that refutes your supposed fact.

 Employers must submit the equivalent of a W-2 form to the Social Security Administration for each employee. No person has to report that portion of their income to the government for any purposes and certainly not for tax purposes. That's a second point that refutes your supposed fact.

Plus, since income is not taxed the government has no tax incentive to snoop around in any person's financial affairs because the government will not be allowed to tax any person's income.

With the NRST the government doesn't require a person report their income from dividends and interest from investments or other capital gains. That's a third point that refutes your supposed fact.

I could go on but that's three strikes and you're out -- your supposed facts have been thrice refuted.

I've got to stop discrediting myself here.

Three strikes and you're out, and yes, you should stop discrediting yourself.

[rwfromkansas]

I was hoping I wasn't a complete idiot and I missed something obvious...lol.

[Zon]

Z, Joe and Jane "Sixpack" don't influence politicians. Millionaires do. If people making millions of dollars had to pay the same rate as on their income, they would be clamoring to get that rate lowered. While sipping their favorite beverage, under the NRST, they would probably talk about the government supplied amenities we "all" should have. Concert halls, museums, ballparks and arenas, race tracks, etc and conclude that the tax rate needs to be raised. It's already happened. It caused the Boston tea party. Your utopia just don't exist. Peace and love, George.

First, what is that Z you're always putting at the beginning of your first paragraph supposed to mean?

The fact of the matter is, politicians need votes to get elected and reelected. Joe and Jane "Smith" are in the majority and their votes can keep any tax-rate raising politician from being elected. Their massive number of votes can also elect a politician that will lower the tax rate. It seems all too clear that you're implying that votes don't matter and the only way politicians would lower the tax rate was if multi-millionaires bribed them.

Earth to George, get a grip man!

I can't believe you're still arguing the same refuted point. It boggles the mind.

[Taxman]

George, you have made my point: you cannot get away FRom your Marxist class warfare argument and silly, unsubstantiated arguments based thereon!

Hear me out, George: our intent is to once and for all destroy the Marxist class warfare argument "FRom each according to their ability, to each according to their need."

That nice sounding, but misguided argument has caused in excess of 100 million deaths since Marx and Engels published the Communist Manifesto in 1847. They were wrong, George, dead wrong!

Drop your class warfare argument and argue issues on their merits!

The NRST is but one of the arguments/governmental actions we will use to destroy the Marxist class warfare theology. There are actions we will take, but first things first!

The issue is FReedom, George, and the Marxist class warfare argument presupposes no FReedom. It, in fact, presupposes and legitimizes theft and thuggery by the state against the people and slavery of the people to the state! The former Soviet Union, Cuba and China are instructive in this regard.

There is no legitimate argument that can be made to support state theft and thuggery and state enslavement of the people, George. The progressive income tax is a classic example of all three. The NRST will FRee the American people, George, FRom state control, and you LIEberal/Socialist/Marxist bastards cannot exist in a state of FReedom, because with FReedom, you are irrelevant and essentially useless.

The old maxim of "Lead, follow or get out of the way" applies here, George. History is passing you by!

Good riddance!

[Principled]

What about it? Give the links ..

Just look at any of the above posts. They all contain links.

...unlike your hired economist I can show the numbers.

Well, you haven't ever shown any numbers. Further, while it may be true that a random individual spouts crap due to political belief, that is not the case when DOZENS of experts from DOZENS of industries all come to the same conclusion.

Looks like you've been reduced to attempting to discredit the entire world. How could your opinion be so diferent than nearly EVERYONE? Here's an example posted by you... "It's not an opinion, it's fact". Spoken like a true 7th grader. LOL

maybe someone will increase profits, but it won't be any 20, 30, 40%...

Oh, changing position now huh? You now admit that profits may increase. Well, it's a start. What moved you?...the MOUNTAIN of research done by DOZENS of EXPERTS in DOZENS of industries?

...tax rate would need an 80% profit or gain to meet your one pinhead economist's ...

"Pinhead"?... "one" economist??? No on both counts. There are DOZENS of experts in many fields supporting the positions I am asserting. And to call PhDs, LLMs, Chairmen of the Federal Reserve, and so on all "pinheads" is just a dumb thing to do... idiotic even.

Beyond that, your statement indicates that you believe that the only place tax savings will be realized by any entity is in the actual elimination of the entity's income taxes. That's just plain wrong. They will eliminate 100% of their income tax costs. They will eliminate 100% of their payroll tax costs. All of their supplies will be 20-40% cheaper. They will eliminate 90% of compliance costs. So your little math problem is not relevant.

But you go on saying your "facts" are facts. We'll just keep giving you your medicine.

[lewislynn]

If we were to conduct a poll and asked 1,000 people that have read either H.R. 25 or the fairtax.org Web site whether they think the tax probate check[sic] is a welfare check, probably 99% of them would say it's not a welfare check. ...

SO? You need 99 people out of 100 to tell you what to think, I don't....Besides, if you believe your own probability, why would you care what I call it? (Probate check?)

With the NRST the government doesn't require a person report their income from dividends and interest from investments or other capital gains.

They don't have to require it, it will be done by the institution when they disclose their implicit and explicit financial intermediation service fee's they collect from you based on the interest you've earned...You really need to bone up on what you're trying to sell. But maybe your right, in these days of tracking drug money and terrorist funding I'm sure the government will just forget all that for your new salestax.

Social Security is not a tax.

Hmmm. could've fooled me...OH speaking of what 99 out of 100 people would say, I'll bet 99 out of 100 people who pay FICA will tell you it's a tax...so, it must be a tax....Better yet let's see what the law calls it

US CODE COLLECTION

TITLE 26 > Subtitle C > CHAPTER 21 CHAPTER 21 - FEDERAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS ACT
Subchapter A Tax on Employees Subchapter B Tax on Employers Subchapter C General Provisions	Search this title: Notes

Yep, it's a tax.

No person has to report that portion of their income to the government for any purposes and certainly not for tax purposes. That's a second point that refutes your supposed fact.

Well not exactly, for some reason you left out that you have to report self-employment income...see even when you have an employer, if you do work on the side you are required to declare your "self-employment" income, your sales tax doesn't change that. What is self-employment income"

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

That could even mean the sale of drugs or prostitution.

Plus, since income is not taxed the government has no tax incentive to snoop around in any person's financial affairs because the government will not be allowed to tax any person's income. ....Does the government snoop around in your financial affairs? Paranoia isn't healthy.

That brings us back to ill gotten gains such as drug money, terrorist funding/ activities, fraud and a whole host of other illegal activities...

SO, it looks more like 3 stikes and YOU'RE out...

[lewislynn]

Oh, changing position now huh? You now admit that profits may increase.

I'm not changing positions, I've always said that prices wouldn't (not couldn't) be reduced that rather profits would increase...I in fact stated (more than once) that if my profit driven business taxes were eliminated I would NOT lower my prices, especially after an entire nation had been fooled into thinking they'd have more money to spend.

They will eliminate 100% of their income tax costs. They will eliminate 100% of their payroll tax costs. All of their supplies will be 20-40% cheaper. They will eliminate 90% of compliance costs.

Parroting, regurgitating, the same phony numbers with no meaning or proof of where they come from. Where, exactly will the 20-40% reduction come from...you continue to puke those numbers up yet can't explain EXACTLY, SPECIFICALLY, where the savings come from. I understand that you aren't smart enough to figure it out, so post 'the figures' (not the rhetoric) from someone who is. And while you're at it would someone, once and for all, define EXACTLY, SPECIFICALLY, what "compliance costs" would be reduced by the most absurd, far fetched figure of 90%?

My questions aren't unreasonable unless you're too stupid or afraid to explain your own rhetoric.

[Always Right]

I've never made a personal attack against you. You're free to try to prove me wrong and post a quote of mine wherein I attacked you. Otherwise, correct your error.

First off I never said you personally attacked me, I said, "I have yet to find one of you NRST zealots who does not engage in personal attacks." Second off why don't you read post 117 again, where you said, "I wasn't applauding you -- scorn or ridicule perhaps, but applauds or praise, most certainly not." I guess you consider your 'scorn' and 'ridicule' not a personal attack.

Third off, if someone makes an uncalled for personal attack on me, I damn well reserve the right to respond. That wasn't your fight so stay out of it. It was dealt with appropriately by the moderaters who deleted both posts.

I try to stay out of these NRST tax threads because the personal attacks by the NRST zealots make me sick. Everytime someone exposes the exagerations and misrepresentations of the so-called fair tax, they are personally attacked as stupid, a democrat commie, and an IRS employee. I am glad to see you are against personal attacks, too bad you are a big fat hypocrit about it. Why not scorn Paul C. Jesup for his personal attacks, or is it OK when the NRST zealots do so? Or is it only when someone responds to such 'crap' as you put it, do you get upset. Like opponents are supposed to be winnies who just shutup take it. Get real.

[George Frm Br00klyn Park]

"vast research done by experts in the field."

P, Wonder who paid these "experts" for their "research"? By the way, Joan isn't writing about passing the "fair" tax bill. She wrote about hidden legislation written into the tax "cut" bill. Be afraid. Be VERY afraid. Peace and love, George.

[George Frm Br00klyn Park]

Z, {The beginning of your "name"}, Most times, Politicians make their most odious votes as "lame ducks". They don't care if they get re-elected. Some make "mistakes" like the former Bush. And, it really doesn't matter if the odious politicians get re-elected anyway. Most times if not all, their replacements are odious politicians with the BIG government ideals. Peace and love, George.

[Principled]

LOL.

You've gone from trying discredit me to trying to discredit the dozens of experts. FReepers are laughing at you, trust me.

And the numbers you want that show a 20-40% reduction in prices have been posted a million times on these threads in the words of Taxman, Bigun, CHIEF Negotiator, Ancient_geezer, and many others. Further, when you asked for research backing up the numbers, it has ajlways been provided. LOTS of research from dozens of expers from many industries.

But you sit there and claim it hasn't been done. Just look on this thread. There are multiple links to studes showing just what you say you want to see.

As always, your posts reduce to simply claiming you're right and the rest of the world is wrong. You're the laughing stock of FR tax threads. Just ask around.

[Principled]

P, Wonder who paid these "experts" for their "research"?

I guess you do. You don't know. You are assuming it was all paid for by sales tax advocates. You would be wrong. Much of the research is both done by, reviewed by, and affirmed by other entities including industry experts, FED chairmen, etc. Just take a damn look at the info and you'd see it , G.

[George Frm Br00klyn Park]

Drop your class warfare argument and argue issues on their merits!

The NRST is but one of the arguments/governmental actions we will use to destroy the Marxist class warfare theology. There are actions we will take, but first things first!
=====================

TM, Your NRST IS CLASS WARFARE!! As I have written and shown, it is DESIGNED to benefit the wealthy investors, and wealthy investors ESPECIALLY. It is DESIGNED to debilitate the resources of middle income people, and to emasculate the resources and ANY chance of economic advancement for BOTH groups. Even including ANY of the short term benefits such as consumer savings that MIGHT occur in the beginning.

You are almost right about your wish "to once and for all destroy the Marxist class warfare argument "FRom each according to their ability, to each according to their need.", though you will never destroy an arguement for something that NEVER esisted in working reality. Even Marx on his death bed said, "I am not a Communist". He was a socialist. One who believed that he was better than others, and deserved a better "to each" than most. And, socialism is how the former{?} U.S.S.R. and China were run. "Some pigs are more equal.
But, the NST written into the tax cut bill and the NRST if enacted will eliminate ALL possibilities of advancement except for the wealthy investors and government workers and politicians. The "Perots and Gateses" will NEVER occur again. THIS is the ITENT of the bill. To insure that wealth and power remain in the hands of the "elite" of today and their progeny into perpetuity. In a word, SOCIALISM!! Or, as it was called in former times, Baronies, or feifdoms and feudalism of power.

If you don't want "class warfare", don't start the war! The numbers on the differences in taxes paid by different income groups are absolute fact, and all the wishing and yelling in the world won't change that. And, as long as the war goes on, I AIN'T gettin' out of the way. As long as I am physically and mentally able.

And, I am DAMN SURE NOT argueing for the proven destructive "FRom each according to their ability, to each according to their need." policy. That REQUIRES a GRADUATED {progressive} income tax. A flat tax based on income from whatever source derived with NO deductions and/or exemptions would be the more "fair" taxation that could be devised. It is the ONLY taxation system that allows for equal opportunity for individual advancement through hard work, initiative, and/or the presence of good luck.It also allows equally for the depredation of wealth for those who spend more than their investment only income provides. Which, is WHY the wealthy and their moneyhandlers so oppose such a tax system, and WHY they would lobby incessantly for a lower rate.

ALL other taxes should be eliminated! ESPECIALLY the abominable yearly rent that homeowners MUST pay governments that we know as property taxes. Peace and love, George.

[lewislynn]

Zon:...

"Employers must submit the equivalent of a W-2 form to the Social Security Administration for each employee."

Principled:...

"They will eliminate 100% of their payroll tax costs."

Will one of you children tell me which one of you is lying? As I stated before, you people need to get your stories straight.

[Principled]

Lewis,

Payroll TAX costs are not COMPLIANCE costs.

Tax costs are the costs of the tax.

Compliance costs are the costs of compliance to the tax code.

Dolt.

[lewislynn]

You've gone from trying discredit me to trying to discredit the dozens of experts. FReepers are laughing at you, trust me.

I don't have to TRY to discredit you, you're doing that yourself by refusing to show proof of what's now disinformation. Telling me or showing me that you're saying exactly what someone else has said is hardly proof of anything. Trust you?...That's a laugh in itself. You're becoming the Baghdad Bob of the sales tax threads.

And the numbers you want that show a 20-40% reduction in prices have been posted a million times on these threads in the words of Taxman, Bigun, CHIEF Negotiator, Ancient_geezer, and many others. Further, when you asked for research backing up the numbers, it has ajlways been provided. LOTS of research from dozens of expers from many industries

A million times Bob? Then you should have no trouble having them post/copy and paste one example here. AG has no problem spamming threads with other crap...just can't seem to find that info though huh? It's odd you named everyone who's posted it but yourself...Why is that?

Surely you can back up your rhetoric, untill you do it's just more lies and misinformation isn't it.

[Principled]

I'm not changing positions, I've always said that prices wouldn't... be reduced

I didn't say they wouldn't fall, they may.

Consistency in untruth.

[Principled]

So you're aksing me to post the information again while simultaneously saying you don't believe my information. If, as you say, it has never been posted, how can you be so sure it's not right? Hello!?

And you say that the links to research and experts' numbers have never been provided, yet you whine about the numerous links doing so on tax threads (including this thread).

You say opposite things simultaneously. This is why it's so phun to keep you on a thread!