Posted on 05/11/2007 5:30:56 AM PDT by Dick Bachert
I don’t know about defending the status quo, but I beleive that if you have a problem with government spending, then that is where you should focus. other thatn that you’re creating an environment where people THINK something’s hapenning, only to find out that nothing of substance has changed - they still get rooked.
Start thinking about honesty, and maybe you will see the error of the Free Lunch Fairytale. There are none so blind as those who are convinced of the truth of something that is wrong.
Believe me, I'm standing my ground. A lot of us are...
i’d look at how other countries get their money.
OR
i’d consider ALL money coming in as income - regardless of source, and tax every dollar at the same rate for everybody.
at x percent, everybody’s paying based upon income, the rich pay more, the poor pay less, everybody has a stake in the government, and with no exemptions, it remains really ‘fair’.
it’s simple, enforceable, transitionable, and really fair. And if the ‘poor’ gripe about payign their fair share, then there’s that public outcry you wanted.
Why? Is there some country that's truly free and has a better long-term economy than the U.S.?
i’d consider ALL money coming in as income - regardless of source, and tax every dollar at the same rate for everybody. at x percent, everybody’s paying based upon income, the rich pay more, the poor pay less, everybody has a stake in the government, and with no exemptions, it remains really ‘fair’. it’s simple, enforceable, transitionable, and really fair.
How is that so different than taxing all money going out as consumption with a flat rate, other than the consumption tax reducing the number of monitoring/collection points by about 90% (~20 million retailers vs. ~200 individual filers) and front-loading the system to hamper investment? That's simpler and more enforceable, and equally as fair (if not more so given the fact that you have the freedom to invest some of that money without having to pay taxes on it first).
Geez, I'm in proofreading hell today...
This part of the statement should apply to the income tax, not a true consumption tax, of course.
It potentially is a lot less intrusive, but. You do have to file reports. You file to get your monthly prebate check and you file if you buy something from a non-registered or overseas retailer. It is naive to think the new-IRS will not be looking into personal records. A clear reading of the bill says otherwise. If the new-IRS just thinks you might owe taxes, they have the authority to demand your records.
The current system hides most of the tax burden, takes it at the wellhead, and plays one group of citizens against another. Until you get it out where everyone can see it, and unifies the self-interest of the American people, you won’t see spending addressed.
England is a monarchy, with subjects. I am not a subject, but a citizen, and if that difference is lost on the writer, no wonder they are pushing this.
There is no free lunch, the money has to come out of someone's pocket, and in the end, the taxpayer will get it in the 'end'.
The parasitic classes love the idea of getting a check, but the proponents of this ignore the fact that someone has to issue and distribute these checks. Someone would still have to enforce the tax law, so there would still be an army of government minions sucking up our substance so it can be unConstitutionally redistributed. Never mind.
Just get government back within its Constitutional constraints and we'd really save a grundle.
Because I see it as killing my business. I really don't see how new homes will be able to compete against existing homes sales under this scheme. The way it is set up, new homes will be at a 30% disadvantage from existing homes the day after this is passed.
It’s not a question of paying less tax, it never was.
No, but it is marketed that way. The old keep 100% of your paycheck and prices stay the same routine is the main staple of the fairtax pitch.
It’s the need to get the stinking KGB IRS out of American lives.
Then market the plan that way. Although I think the freedom claims are grossly overstated it should be an improvement. I can guarentee you, collecting $2.5 Trillion will be intrusive into everyone's life, I don't care how you do it.
“Nope, don’t want to earn more money, because I’ll be taxed more on it.”
I am a small business owner and i have heard that phrase before.....several times as a matter of fact....you have no idea how dumb the sheeple are.....
Name, address, and SSN. Pretty much what you need to file to vote in most districts. (Might not be a bad idea to link the forms to save folks the trouble.)
Supply and demand. As the demand for older ("untaxed") homes rise, their prices will too, until the cost advantage of old vs. new settles back to equilibrium again (people will pay extra for new homes because they believe they get extra value for them).
That is the absolute truth of the matter VERY well stated!
As all Fair Tax opponents do, you lie about the tax rate. It is a 23% inclusive rate. Not a 30% exclusive rate.
At least be honest in your commentary. Though that is usually not the case with Fair Tax opponents. They always lie and change the terms.
Well, they really don't have much choice. Defending the income tax is a tough slog...
It is estimated that at least $10 TRILLION in US capital is invested outside of the US for favorable tax treatment. Remove the that competitive advantage from foreign nations and that $10 TRILLION and TRILLIONS more will come pouring back into America.
A real economy killer, huh.
???? A 23% inclusive tax rate is a 30% exclusive tax rate. The bottom line, a $100 untaxed item will be $130 under the fair tax. Whether is it calculated as 23% of $130 or 30% of $100 (like how every state does it) is mute. Calling it a 23% inclusive tax is just misleading as no one outside of the fairtax crowd have any idea what you are talking about.
“Nope, don’t want to earn more money, because I’ll be taxed more on it.”
Laugh, but it is absolutely true. I remember when I was a small child in 1980 my father was offered a very big promotion which also required relocating. As a small kid, all I could see was what his salary and bonus plan was. And they were big numbers. A sizable amount over what he was getting at the time.
He turned the job down and I asked him why he didn't want to make that money. In my first lesson in economics and taxes, he showed me that at the higher salary and new location, he would actually has LESS money in his pocket after taxes.
So yes, an increased tax burden will lead people to elect to not earn more.
90% of home builders will be in bankruptcy as they wait around for thie equilibrium.
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.