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 seem to be one of the few that is overly concerned with what Boortz does (or does not) say. I've read on these threads many times from many posters that the FairTax would not affect gross wages, but that prices would decline giving people more funds so that even with the FairTax there would be more disposable personal income for most people.
That means basically Robbie that even with the FairTax they net out more bux. You SQL Squadron members seem unable to believe that insisting that prices will rise and people will have less money because (aaccording to you) have to take a salaaary cot. Tain't so.
I could care less how Boortz expresses it, but you have been the one insisting that FairTax supporters have claimed there was a "Free Lunch" and no supporter I know has ever claimed that.
You'ere merely a adding prevarication to misinformation.
Nonsense - it's not an entitlement at all but a refund of taxes paid.
To get an idea of how much "welfaare" is involved see #195 on this thread.
Another one who can't read the numbers apparently and attempts to pass it off with the "scam" comment..
It'ds no "dodge" at all, MoJo, as you'd know if you'd read the bill and had any sense ... neither of which seems likely.
read the bill - it's 23% for very good reason - so that it can be easily be compared on an equal basis with income tax rates - among other things.
It is also required in providing a receipt to each buyer of taxable items ... but you knew that and merely choose to misstate things for your own agenda.
For starters, a "particular group" is hardly all taxpayers and an entitlement also needs to have apportionment bills each year to fund it.
Regardless of the amount of taxes actually paid or even if no taxes were paid at all. Marxism.
They aren't entitlements (aare you deef???) and they probably won't be "checks" but wire transfers.
Simple - 23% of taxable purchases. And almost zero is collected now. But there are others in the illegal income area also who will be hit by the FairTax.
Why are you bringing this argument about you driving while you're stone deaf over here? I don't believe anyone who can hear nothing should drive, unless the deafness is correctable. I asked you if it was for you and got no answer at all. I took that as a no. If it was a yes, then go for it, I have no problem.
I did on that thread what I do on all these controversial threads, including this one. I express my opinion and defend it. If and when there is nothing left but invective, I leave. If I've heard nothing to convince me against my opinion, and there is just repetition, I leave.
Is this clear to you? Will you pursue me to other threads trying to convince me you're safe driving while you're have that condition?
Repeating your lie doesn't make it true.
Your massive income redistribution "prebate" scheme isn't limited to taxpayers.
That's your interpretation Nightie, andwe've seen how accurate your "interpretations" are in the past (409% error remember).
There are certainly other interpretations possible, and the number of pople covered in that coilumn is much smaller that most of the others IAE.
Actually the numbers aren't intended to "add up" so claiming they don't do so is meaningless nonsense ... but you're good at that.
the point is still correct that not many receiving the prebate will be spending at much below the poverty level (if at all). Post #195 is still more rational on the matter that your palaver.
It is not established that the prebate redistributes. The data only show that irrespective of reported income, people spend to the poverty level.
If people spend to the poverty level, the rebate is a refund of overpaid tax.
Of course, there is no redistribution at all under our income tax, is there? lol
Actually Robbie, he understands the FairTax better than you.
You seem to have never even read the bill based upon your different misstatements about it.
The point is that you're not required to take wither the prebate or the S/S payment.
They are optional.
One other thing, I don't have to convince you that I am a safe driver. Who do you think you are that I have to justify anything I do to you? That's ridiculous!
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.