Posted on 04/14/2006 2:42:07 PM PDT by Eaglewatcher
of good news is that support is growing for complete replacement of the tax code with a national consumption tax. More and more taxpayers are demanding action from their representatives in Congress, and their representatives are listening.
Just one year ago, there were 33 sponsors and co-sponsors of HR 25, The FairTax Act, in the U.S. House. Now there are 53 supporters, and new co-sponsors are joining every month. In the Senate, Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) was the lone sponsor of the FairTax Act, S 25, one year ago. Senators Tom Coburn (R-OK) and John Cornyn (R-TX) now join Senator Chambliss as co-sponsors. The word is spreading about the overwhelming benefits to our economy and our wallets when we replace the nine-million-word tax code mess with the fair and simple FairTax.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
The old prove the negative scam. SOP for the "fair" taxers.
When will they dump the "23% inclusive" dodge?
You are trying to discount the data for two reasons:
First, the data discount your theory that the rebate is going to be going to people who don't deserve it (and that doesn't happen now, does it?)
Second, the data show a valid reason to assert that the nrst does a better job of collecting from the cash economy.
It's a double-whammy for those who assert otherwise using only their opinions.
As I've said for months, if you have associated data, post it. To date, you've declined to post any contrary data. Who's dishonest - the one who posts data and uses the data to buttress an assertion or the one who discounts the data because he doesn't like it?
Keep trying.
the 23% vs 30% subterfuge is just semantics, and I think they'll cling to the 23% all the way to the bottom of the ocean.
Here, I'll make it easier for you...
Use the data (or post other data) that show your assertion.
THe data I've posted buttresses my assertion.
Got data? Or just insults?
now Boortz is pretending to be a Libertarian again, even though he loves the prebate, and thinks that removing the poor from all federal tax rolls is a good thing as long as the FairTax is how that is accomplished.
Quote the assertion.
Fact? HA!
There are arguments that it not an entitlement program. Just look of the definition of entitlement for starters.
Second, data indicates that you are wrong. Have you looked? Aren't you the one who says others ignore the facts?
Data indicate the opposite of what you say.
You don't know your own assertion? HAHA! Backpedaling already in the face of data! LOL!
That is the crux of the reason the nrst does a better job of collecting taxes from the cash economy. Thank you for making the point so clearly.
"A government program that guarantees and provides benefits to a particular group..."What's the "fair" taxer definition, just out of curiousity?
Making illegals alway pay the max rate will ameliorate the illegal immigration problem in two ways:
First, it collects over 100% of the illegals' fair share.
Second, it makes it less profitable to come in.
The first point is by far the more effective, but the second shouldn't be ignored IMO.
Which assertion are you pretending to address? Is your "cut and paste" broken?
The rebate is going to offset taxes paid on spending above the poverty level. Those below the poverty level still spend up to the poverty level as shown by the bls data.
Also, the nrst will do a better job of collecting from the cash economy - as evidenced by the bls data.
Got data showing otherwise?
sagebrush rolling....
A "Libertarian" for distributing hundreds of billions of dollars in entitlement checks yearly. Oxymoronic guy.
"Prebate", not rebate. And the entitlement checks go out whether the taxes they "offset" are paid or not, and without regard to whether the alleged spending is shown to have occurred or not.
Really? What's their "fair share"?
What's dishonest? I post data indicating average incomes and their associated average spending levels. The averages show that few people will spend below poverty level.But the numbers don't add up and, because the screwy number support your claim, you don't care to know why.
First, the data discount your theory that the rebate is going to be going to people who don't deserve it (and that doesn't happen now, does it?)Do you not agree that anyone spending less than the poverty level would make money with the "prebate"? (Actually, it's a little lower than the poverty level, but that doesn't matter for our discussion.) Would you not also agree that there are people spending below the poverty level?
Second, the data show a valid reason to assert that the nrst does a better job of collecting from the cash economy.You are making the assumption that anyone spending more that they are making in income is in the "cash economy." Wouldn't a person living off of savings spend more than they make in income? Isn't that much more likely than someone in the "cash economy" answering a survey from the government saying I spend $20,000 but only make $5,000 (basically admitting they under-report their income)?
As I've said for months, if you have associated data, post it. To date, you've declined to post any contrary data. Who's dishonest - the one who posts data and uses the data to buttress an assertion or the one who discounts the data because he doesn't like it?Go to the Consumer Expenditure Survey's Standard Error table. Notice how the coefficient of variation (CV(%)) for the "Less than $5,000" column is significantly higher than the other columns. That means the variation in levels of expenditures in this column is very high. This goes back to what I was trying to explain to you earlier about averages and populations. In this column you obviously have a lot of people spending a little and a few people spending a lot and that is skewing the average.
Keep trying.Why don't you start trying. The truth shall set you free.
Those below the poverty level still spend up to the poverty level as shown by the bls data.That's impossible. If someone spends beyond the poverty level, they aren't in poverty (the poverty level isn't based on reported income). Are you suggesting there is no one in America who is in poverty?
Not so sure about the "oxy" part, but the rest of it is certain. he just wanted a "#1 NYT Bestselling Author" to go after his name, he is clueless on the tax legislation.
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.