Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: RKV
RKV wrote:

Not clear why no one on this thread has got my point. I do write simple declarative english sentences. 1) I already paid taxes on what I have saved. 2) Now you propose a sales tax to tax AGAIN what I have worked so hard to put away? 3) I am not a fan of the IRS/income taxes, but is it fair to tax people like me AGAIN?

You missed the point made that you already pay the taxed costs of anything you buy.
These taxation costs are built into everything we purchase ~now~..
-- Thus, you won't be taxed any more under the 'fair tax' scheme then you are now.

If the scheme works, overall taxation would be less than now. ---- And we would regain a private financial life, free of the IRS.

Agreed it would be great to get the gov out of my business.
No one seems to be able to explain to me why it is fair to give the gov another shot at my money.

A number of us here have explained to you that the feds are NOT getting another 'shot'.

Apparently you can't understand our "simple declarative english sentences".
Don't worry, it's a quite typical reaction at FR, - whenever facts interfere with emotion.

173 posted on 11/03/2004 1:30:09 PM PST by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies ]


To: tpaine

1) Overall taxation would be the same as it is now - it equals what the government spends plus or minus surplus or deficit spending. This plan in no way cuts spending, it only changes the method of paying for government. It may cut compliance costs and increase privacy which are good things in and of themselves. 2) It does increase the amount of taxes on my existing stock of capital since under the present method of collecting taxes, the rate of taxation on the goods and services purchased is lower than it would otherwise be because income and capital gains are taxed (and make up revenue to the government which would need to be offset). 3) I do take seriously the history of the income tax and am quite aware that the founders did not want this method of taxation (which required a constitutional amendment to legalize). 4) I heartily support putting CPAs and tax attorneys out of work and redirecting their energies to useful things like cost accounting. 6) Lets take a simple example. Joe Citizen is retired and has $1000 in the bank. He needs $100 per year to live on. When purchasing the goods and services he needs to live, he pays some corporate tax and some sales/excise taxes. Under a national sales tax, the tax on those goods must go up to cover the lost revenue to the government caused by the loss of income taxes (paid for by other persons since Joe is retired) which pays for government services (assuming the gov doesn't run a deficit). Other persons than Joe paid those taxes in the prior state. Now Joe has to pay a share of them. Joe appears to me to be worse off.


185 posted on 11/03/2004 1:56:13 PM PST by RKV ( He who has the guns, makes the rules)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies ]

To: tpaine
You missed the point made that you already pay the taxed costs of anything you buy. These taxation costs are built into everything we purchase ~now~..

How so? Where is this "hidden tax" on a $50 microwave oven that was made in China that I buy at Wal-Mart? There's no income tax paid to feds from the Chinese factory workers. There's a little bit for the Wal-Mart employees, but it in no way reaches the amount being argued here.

190 posted on 11/03/2004 1:58:46 PM PST by FreedomCalls (It's a joke, people!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson