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 ...
You think someone gives a rat's rear end how much time YOUcan devote to something??? Stop posting such drivel Willie Tee!
You never stop to think how muich time others have to waste reasding your nonsense in order to respond to you, do you.
You're hugely arrogant!! And unjustifiably so!!
Wasn't there a system very much like that years ago --- until they broke up the Round Table and severed the bowstrings???
Wow, that about says it all for old ran15, doesn't it??
Well, no. The prebate isn't welfare but a refund.
But with the present system there are many who rightly (or otherwise) report no tax obligation for a good amount of income that they buy things with and some have other sources of unreported income and even gifts and/or loans.
There are many sources one can obtain money from but probably the easiest wasy of all for many is just to lie to Uncle Sugar - or remain silent while playing a sort of Russian Roulette with the tax system.
You truly are an arrogant ass!
Talk about intellectually dishonest, let's not forget your little 409% "error" (which you still pretend was honest).
Let's not bother with the quasi-statistical mumbo jumbo either ... and that's not even what was said, but one of your straw men.
You should read the bill instead of picking lint from your navel.
There IS no "inevitable black market" except in the fervent hopes and dreams of you anti=FairTax types. What we have instead - RIGHT NOW - are many, many millions of people in the illegal economy not paying income tax on their income and with no way for the government to reach out and touch them for a "tax contribution" while the FairTax does just that when they spend their illegal income uynder the FairTax.
Enforcement will actually be much easier and cheaper that at present when the IRS themselves admit to something like an amoput equal to 25% of income tax receives is evaded - not including illegal income.
Businesses will do just fine thanks as the are paid to collect, report, and forward the FairTax.
Never mind the Cchicken Little arguments and scare tactice. Nightie and others try them all the time with no more effect that you'll have.
If you'd read the bill your see hat NO, they don't.
Can you read???
Strawman.
My claim is only that the data show that irrespective of reported income, people spend to the poverty level. There are a number of reasons for this.
As you posted, a significant number could be living on saved money - in which case they will not profit from the rebate. That a significant number of people are in that category supports the assertion that few will profit from the rebate. The existence of this category makes the group that may profit from tax refunds even smaller. Of course, we know that nobody profits of tax refunds these days LOL.
Do you not agree that anyone spending less than the poverty level would make money with the "prebate"?
Depends on the tme frame. I could profit one month by buyng-up/prepaying necessities the previous month - so that I'd have few necessities in the current month. Of course then I'd profit in the current month but I would have paid tax on the necessities the previous month. So in a one month window, I'd profit. But long term, no gain.
You are making the assumption that anyone spending more that they are making in income is in the "cash economy."
Another strawman. If someone spends more than they make in income in a given time period, they may be in the cash economy. That's all.
Standard errors are not relevant. We both agree that these are averages. The reasons you say the errors are important is to support your claim that one who spends more than they earn does not have to be in the cash economy. Well, me too. That doesn't matter wrt pofiting from rebate. What is germane is that all of the folks spending savings, borrowing to spend, whatever the source.... these folks are excluded from the group that may profit.;0)
Living off savings is obviously one way to have earnings less than savings.... and this group will not profit from the rebate.
Whether or not they are in the cash economy is unknown, but they may be. If even one of the individuals listed is in it, the nrst will collect his taxes more completely and fairly than the income tax. :0) Ya think? lol
Keep trying.
The rebate is for everyone, not a subgroup defined by income.
Strawman.
My claim is only that the data show that irrespective of reported income, people spend to the poverty level. There are a number of reasons for this.
As you posted, a significant number could be living on saved money - in which case they will not profit from the rebate. That a significant number of people are in that category supports the assertion that few will profit from the rebate. The existence of this category makes the group that may profit from tax refunds even smaller. Of course, we know that nobody profits of tax refunds these days LOL.
Do you not agree that anyone spending less than the poverty level would make money with the "prebate"?
Depends on the tme frame. I could profit one month by buyng-up/prepaying necessities the previous month - so that I'd have few necessities in the current month. Of course then I'd profit in the current month but I would have paid tax on the necessities the previous month. So in a one month window, I'd profit. But long term, no gain.
You are making the assumption that anyone spending more that they are making in income is in the "cash economy."
Another strawman. If someone spends more than they make in income in a given time period, they may be in the cash economy. That's all.
Standard errors are not relevant. We both agree that these are averages. The reasons you say the errors are important is to support your claim that one who spends more than they earn does not have to be in the cash economy. Well, me too. That doesn't matter wrt pofiting from rebate. What is germane is that all of the folks spending savings, borrowing to spend, whatever the source.... these folks are excluded from the group that may profit.;0)
Living off savings is obviously one way to have earnings less than savings.... and this group will not profit from the rebate.
Whether or not they are in the cash economy is unknown, but they may be. If even one of the individuals listed is in it, the nrst will collect his taxes more completely and fairly than the income tax. :0) Ya think? lol
Keep trying.
The rebate is for everyone, not a subgroup defined by income.
Why don't you try reading the bill for a change, Robbie?
The Euro countries typically have the VAT tax form frewquently along with income and sales taxes as well as other types of taxes. With your level of understanding you'll love it.
That's 33% to this crowd, pd. LOL
Boy azre you misinformed. I suggest you read the bill and eturn with some rational comments.
The BS about "tens of thousands of black market sellers" just won't hack it with anyone who stops to realize there are many, many, many millions of people in the illeghal economy right now that pay no income tax. and black markets that might crop up won't last long since they must register with the state (and thereby be auditable) to legally sell - and if not thaay can be pursued with civil and criminal penalties very easily - more so that under the income tax sinc proof of illegality is much easier.
Actually, no, Robbie I doubt that anyone knew that - even you.
What is your rationale for thinking that through? Sounds like it may be nor more solidly grounded that your opposition to the FairTax for any reason at all.
Sounds like you're going off the deep end, too just like Robbie. Perhaps you should stop trading Private Mail with he as he's making you crazy (not that that's a huge job).
Great - another believer ...
Only one thing wrong - you're almost totally incorrect about the breadth of things on the black market a(and how long they'll operate from outside of a jail cell). And don't kid yourself about the states ... when their tax revenues are hugely involved and with more money to pursue evildoers (and a smaller base of crooks to choose from while having even more tools to work with) the state will be quite effective. And most states presenly have even less revenue at stake.]
In short, you've mostly got it bassackwards.
It will work and easily so because it is a simple, easily operated taxing mechanism that treats all taxpayers equally.
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.