Posted on 04/04/2006 2:17:28 PM PDT by Eaglewatcher
For all but a tiny fraction of the population (less than 1%) the HCA prebate will be money that they already paid to the government.What's your source for that?
With the FairTax it would take two people in collusion to cheat.No it wouldn't. There would be lots of ways for an individual to cheat the FairTax. A couple of examples: a business could collect the tax and not remit it or a buyer could provide a business-use certificate for the purchase of a personal use item.
Where you work, and what your compensation is, will still be info the government has in its database because it is necessary for the SS participation.
I get your point. I'm adding to the picture.
If I had a choice I would gladly forgo collecting socialist insecurity payments in favor of not telling the government what my compensation is and where I work. Nor will I sign up for the HCA prebate. I chose anonymity.
That said, for the purposes of SS and the HCA it's minimal privacy given up compared to the present system.
With a fast growing economy there is more GDP including increased retail-consumer spending. That equates to more tax revenue and people calling for reduced government spending. Call for reduced government spending that is already in motion from people feeling the 30% (23% inclusive) tax bite at the cash register.
As time goes by and the economy takes off evermore people will opt out of SS and the HCA. That further reduces government control. That's on top of the people having already taken back control of their income.
LOL! That's like saying that if everyone got paid under the table instead of having to suffer immediate confiscation that the present tax scam would not be affected.
No it isn't. I said if the illegal economy increased ten times -- an order of magnitude (your strawman) -- neither the present tax system nor the Fairtax would survive.
It's exactly like saying "an illegal economy of services and black market goods that has the very real potential to increase by, at least, an order of magnetude" -- eskimo@ 101
Yeah right -- NOT! An order of magnitude (correct spelling) -- ten times increase of the illegal economy. And you think people are going to take you seriously!?
You're hoot!
The "Fair Tax" certainly doesn't change that situation.
Just a rough estimate, but here is what I came up with.Not only is it a rough estimate, it's wrong.
It's completely irrelevant: government checks are always bad.
...
After all, a government check is a government check, right?
End strawman. You created a closed loop where government checks are always bad. You said it and will be back tracking, claiming that you didn't mean government checks are always bad and that there are exceptions. I see no reason to continue debating your hypocrisy.
Even if the "prebate" check were completely legitimate, which it isn't, it would still be bad.
The HCA prebate is legitimate and treats each person equally by the fact that they are a human being. Not treating them unequally because incomes differ, age differs, special minority status differs as it is with the present tax system.
It sets the stage for poiltically popular efforts to increase the "prebate", until it equals a handout for the bottom third or half of Americans.
DUH! The stage is already set and is where we are at now with a multitude of K street lobbyists clamoring after prostituting politicians. It's the main reason the tax code is 60,000+ pages. Because the HCA is pegged to the GAO numbers it would be very difficult to change the prebate. The Faitax bill (H.R.25) is just 132 pages.
I'll give you credit though -- you know that the FairTax (H.R.25) would never pass without the prebate. Your argument on this issue is shallow at best..
Seriously, you can't be that naive. Talk to some who lived through WWII or even some of their children. I may be "hoot" to you but I'm not foolish enough to laugh off history when deciding what is best for our republic.
Yawn the premise is that maintaining same revenues as today is not a necessity. Rates under that condition are lower with concequent growing economy.
To merely make a static calculation such as yours is even more out of the ball park that the lower rates estimates of my table.
However the key factor and point is not the absolute value of the rate of taxation per-se. It is the point that participation in the tax system at all economic levels is key to gaining control over government growth. A retail sales tax system assures that all voters are perceptually exposed to the tax burdens of government fostering a change in electorate behaviour and demands with respect to government.
The ultimate achievement can be rates substantially below 10% tax inclusive rather than the 20% tax inclusive rates of taxation we see today through the income/payroll tax system which hides much of the burden from large sectors of the perceptions of the electorate.
Begin remedial education in logic...
A "strawman" is an argument that I put in your mouth, for the purposes of refuting it. My argument was not a straw man: I put nothing in your mouth. Instead I put some words in MY mouth. Namely, the claim that all government checks are always bad, precisely because it desensitizes people to accepting payout of tax dollars.
End remedial education in logic.
That's a bastardization of the word "voluntary". If you don't want to pay income tax, you can choose not to earn income, too.
Yawn the premise is that maintaining same revenues as today is not a necessity. Rates under that condition are lower with concequent growing economy.It's nice to know you have no concern for accuracy in your calculations. I'm sure if you had over estimated you would take the same lackadaisical attitude...
That's a bastardization of the word "voluntary". If you don't want to pay income tax, you can choose not to earn income, too.This crap about the FairTax being "voluntary" is too typical of FairTax supporters. It would not be voluntary. Voluntary would be if they asked me when I bought a new car "Do you want us to add $10,000 in FairTax to the price?" That would be voluntary.
Actually, under the FairTax legislation, one can choose to not purchase new concentrating on used items, as well as grow one's wealth through investment not taxed.
Under your scenario for the avoiding an income tax by not earning income, one merely becomes poorer without the option of being better off overtime that is inherently present with a retail sales tax system.
Under a sales tax system one may defer consumption of services and new products in favor of saving, investing and adjusting one's consumption habits for greater future potential not sacrificing today earning but redirecting them into more productive venues.
For all but a tiny fraction of the population (less than 1%) the HCA prebate will be money that they already paid to the government.1% of the population is 3 million people. 3 million people each receiving their $732 "prebate"(gag!) would be $2.2 BILLION dollars a year...Where would that extra welfare money come from?
The pre-bate is an advanced "re-fund" of the sales tax paid.I get the money I paid before I pay it...Pure idiocy!
It's nice to know you have no concern for accuracy in your calculations. I'm sure if you had over estimated you would take the same lackadaisical attitude...
Actully the 15% with no SS/medicare system is based on the Billy Tauzin's NRST that replaced income taxes but not payroll taxes with a NRST structured like the FairTax legislation.
Franky your assumption as to how the tax rates were derived for that table is as way off mark as your computations for lack of considering the economic growth potential that goes hand in hand with repeal of income tax systems and moving to broader based taxes with lower marginal rates.
Actully the 15% with no SS/medicare system is based on the Billy Tauzin's NRST that replaced income taxes but not payroll taxes with a NRST structured like the FairTax legislation.In one paragraph you say it was based on Tauzin's NRST rate and the next you say the rate is lower due to "economic growth potential." Which is it?
Franky your assumption as to how the tax rates were derived for that table is as way off mark as your computations for lack of considering the economic growth potential that goes hand in hand with repeal of income tax systems and moving to broader based taxes with lower marginal rates.
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.