Posted on 02/03/2002 3:17:46 AM PST by doosee
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:02:21 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Keep in mind that the #1 political "job" is to get elected and the #2 "job" is to stay elected. A lot of people forget that these days it seems.
Little Willie was "The Worst President In American History".
Slowly tracking down resources and rebuilding my knowledge base as time goes along. Man are there ever alot of tax threads across FR. I'm in the process of ferreting out as many as possible and checking the links for each, extracting useful info from and cross indexing each one.
Might be interesting to revive some of the earlier ones that didn't really get much participation due to a much smaller FR audience back in the early days.
Definitely turning out to be one whale of a job.
The bill may be obtained here (enter "hr2525" in "Bill Number" and in the resulting window click on "Full Display"), and to see the websites, click here, and here here, and here.
Little Willie was "The Worst President In American History".
Agreed that federal spending is out of control and needs to be greatly reduced. No one is arguing otherwise. In fact, the FairTax actually reduces government spending by the same mechanism that reduces consumer prices.
That does not mean that more reduction should not be made, but it IS one hell of a good start in the right direction.
Little Willie was "The Worst President In American History".
Little Willie was "The Worst President In American History".
Yea what ever pig. But calling names doesn't defend the fraud in your tax scam does it.
BTW, speaking of "liberal Democrat" exactly what 2 Democrats were the original sponsors of your tax scam?...I don't recall their names, can you?
I'd suggest you read the HR2525 bill itself and pay no attention to his misinterpretation of the snippets he does post. You will see that he is completely wrong.
This is a poster who once was in error by 400% on an arithmetic problem that HE proposed. That was hardly an honest error, but rather intentional deception. He also wishes to retain the income tax since he has a very nice evasion scheme going with it.
Little Willie was "The Worst President In American History".
The S/S and Medicare programs are funded from the FairTax revenues. To increase the funding of these programs, politicians would have to raise the tax rate on ALL taxpayers and no longer have the pretense available to them of "everyone else pays taxes but you don't".
Little Willie was "The Worst President In American History".
Little Willie was "The Worst President In American History".
It would bring with it more freedom, lower taxes, and more money in the pockets of all taxpayers.
Little Willie was "The Worst President In American History".
Little Willie was "The Worst President In American History".
Furiously catching up on a thread... ah the life of a working FReeper!
The reason I don't like the NRST is because I live near Canada where they have something similar and THEY HATE IT WITH A PASSION, and so would we.
A flat tax is easy to implement, gets rid of all the tax lawyers and accountants in one fell swoop, easy to explain to the lower half of the bell-curve (if you get my drift) and cheapest to implement.
I would not like the NRST for another reason- I would not want to replace a system we hate, with a system we will hate even more (go to Canada and see)
AND PUUUHLEEEEZE do not start on me about how OUR nrst would be so much better then the canadian version- there is NO DIFFERENCE when you go to the cash register and they add 'X' amount... NRST is ALREADY being muddled with govt-speak by introduction of terms like 'tax-inclusive' rates (which really means "we are hiding the amount of tax you pay- it is really higher than you think...")
Simple case- when you tell someone we are going to have a 10% NRST and you buy something for $100 how much will it cost? The avg person will think $110- but the actuall cost will be about $111- why? because that is the 'tax inclusive' 10%...huh...?
TRY EXPLAINING TAX-INCLUSIVE TO THE LOWER HALF OF THE BELL-CURVE????? and HOW IN THE HECK DO YOU FIGURE IT OUT IN YOUR HEAD????
---max
You are correct, you are sorry. Here's a suggestion, go to a public library and look up the word consumption and review the history of it's context. In the 18th century, consumption was used in a foul manner, much as the word rape or ravage might be used today. At one time in our recent past, consumption was a disease, in fact my grandmother still uses it in that context when refering to people who are dieing.
Agreed that federal spending is out of control and needs to be greatly reduced. No one is arguing otherwise.
Federal spending is the problem. Altering the method of revenue intake will not change this one iota.
In fact, the FairTax actually reduces government spending by the same mechanism that reduces consumer prices.
Try and sell it to the Pope, there are no guarantee's of price reductions anymore than there are guarantee's of reductions in federal spending in the Fair-Tax bill are there?. I've reviewed the so called "Fair Tax" bill. It doesn't reduce government spending anymore than GW's budget proposal has. I suppose you'll try and argue that it will eliminate the 16th amendment as well huh?.
That does not mean that more reduction should not be made, but it IS one hell of a good start in the right direction.
So you say. And if anything, the "Fair-Tax" will do nothing more than guarantee the revenue growth of the federal government. Not to mention completely passing the burden of taxation to the individual. Do you know how to tell the truth?.
---max
---max
Sorry Max but the burden of taxation already is, always has been, and always will be on the individual!
Do YOU not know how to tell the truth?
Uh, no they don't. They have a VAT. In fact a VAT is most like a flat income tax than a true sales tax. The flat income tax is in fact a subtraction method VAT.
So if you want to avoid what Canada has, you'll steer clear of the flat income tax.
The only similarity between Canada's VAT and the NRST proposed in the US is that both are taxes collected at the register. However, the taxes are computed in completely different ways. The Canadian VAT is levied at every stage of production (like the flat income tax) which creates massive amounts of hidden tax. Hidden taxes will not ever push our pols to lower spending. Withholding, which is part of the flat income tax (actually a VAT), is another killer. If we want people to know what they're paying, then we DON'T want withholding. Withholding lessens the impact of taxes. That means folks don't mind taxes as much... that obviously won't tend toward decreased spending.
The nrst, OTOH, is completely visible. Everyone will see the amount of federal tax they've been paying on every receipt. Visible taxes WILL tend toward lower taxes. Also, there is no more withholding under the US nrst.
Knowing that the Canadian VAT is NOT like the nrst, and knowing that a flat income tax actually IS a VAT, like Canada has, and that a flat income tax will hide more taxes and tend NOT to decrease spending, do you want to reconsider your position?
Since when do people buy new homes at a store counter?
Posing as "tax reform", the NRST (HR 2525) also represents a "land grab" where business interests are favored over individuals purchasing for their own use:
"... legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children,...But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state."
-- Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Oct. 28, 1785 -- PROPERTY AND NATURAL RIGHT
"A home is NOT an investment, W/G, but merely a place to live."
Posted on 03/26/2001 16:27:50 PST by pigdog
What a sham!!!>To: pigdog, Willie Green
It's amazing how many people view a home as an "asset," as well. It's a frickin' LIABILITY.
You wouldn't be on the lower half, so you'll understand this for sure.
1)Tax inclusive is the method used to calculate personal income taxes.
2)Tax inclusive is the method used to calculate corporate income taxes.
3)Tax inclusive is the method used to calculate payroll taxes.
4)Tax inclusive is the method used to calculate estate taxes.
5)Tax inclusive is the method used to calculate gift taxes.
6)Tax inclusive is the method used to calculate all income based taxes.
1)The nrst replaces personal income taxes
2)The nrst replaces corporate income taxes
3)The nrst replaces payroll taxes
4)The nrst replaces estate taxes
5)The nrst replaces gift taxes.
6)The nrst replaces all income based taxes.
So, you not being at the low end of the curve, surely see why the nrst uses tax inclusive rates also.
If you have trouble remembering how to figure the tax, just multiply the shelf price by 1.297 and you'll be with a fraction of a tenth of a cent. Use 1.3 and you'll likely be close enough. Do you think the lower end can remember that?
BTW, you realize that 23% tax inclusive is exactly the same as 29.7% tax exclusive - right? It's the same as comparing meters to yards. If you wanted to compare your height to everyone else and everyone in the world was measuring their height in meters, why would you measure yourself in yards?
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.