Posted on 10/09/2007 5:27:15 AM PDT by Man50D
Ron Petrucci's Sept. 24 letter addressing Charles Firth is right on a number of points. We have been running more than an $800 billion trade deficit. That can't go on for very long. Ron says we're a debtor nation and we are.
Our manufacturing continues to move overseas to "more tax friendly" locations. We can't exist by providing each other services. Picture everyone doing their neighbor's laundry. We need to produce products to exist.
What Ron neglected to say is that the reason for that migration is our tax system. Federal taxes and associated compliance costs comprise an average of 25.9 percent of prices of our goods and services. Imported goods and services arrive at our shores essentially tax-free, because most foreign governments encourage exports by rebating their taxes at their borders. We don't do that.
When we try to sell there, they add their taxes to our prices, so our goods and services end up bearing double taxes. American companies have a raw deal both ways. That's why they have trouble competing.
There is an answer, though in the form of HR 25, The Fair Tax Act. That bill is in the House ways and means committee. It is the most thoroughly researched tax bill ever.
For the second time, a group of noted economists recently wrote a letter to Congress and the president, urging them to pass it and sign it into law.
The bill already has more cosponsors than any other tax bill in 80 years. It is a grass-roots proposal. It will pass only if enough citizens support it and tell their representatives. If passed, the current federal tax system would be replaced by a national retail sales tax applied at the final retail sale and collected by the states.
Net retail prices paid would be about the same. Revenue raised would be about the same. Collecting a sales tax is much more efficient than collecting an income tax, it provides a steady revenue flow and everyone would pay.
It needs to pass now, though, before this president leaves office, because no first-term president will entertain changing the tax system, and Social Security will run out of liquid assets at about the end of the next president's first term.
Check the proposal out at www.fairtax.org
Big changes in the market that create a sector that is suddenly far more profitable seem to inevitably cause a great number of investors jumping into that sector, followed by large growth, followed by a bubble, followed by a crash.
That doesn't mean that a lot of people won't make a lot of money in the process and that the overall benefits to the economy might outweigh the consequences of the bubble. The key thing is to cut back or get out before the bubble gets too big, however it's often not very easy to determine if there was a bubble and how big is was until after the fact.
Your arguing down the wrong path.
The point I was attempting to make, sorry for the misunderstanding, was that the Fed’s would rather keep the system setup to “TAKE THEIR CUT” rather than give the people the power to have more control over when they pay by possibly watching their spending.
The circumstance was nothing more than a hypothetical. Pick the situation, doesn’t matter. They take their share, or you give them their share.
I think the fed’s will not allow that power to be turned over to the people. Call me nutty.
There are always winners and losers in any change in the tax system.
Did you notice that the FT legislation is a tax on consumption? That means that the taxpayer has a CHOICE of where and when to pay taxes. Let them be peeved. They can’t be any more peeved than the rest of America is right now.
-
the losers...won’t support the plan.
if people need to spend, they will be hit while people who don’t need to invest will get a free pass. The companies that sell stuff and the people who work for them will be hit. On the other hand, everyone and his dog will be an exporter. You can’t just put the entire tax burden on one part of the economy. You want a balanced, diversified economy and that means a low tax on both consumption and capital.
Well, DUH!!
Did you ever notice how many losers are debating against it just on this board alone?
we’re not talking about people dependent on government handouts. They worked very hard, followed the rules and you call them losers
He calls everybody “losers” - just ignore it.
X camel is one of those who obviously stands to lose. (Your term, not mine). I think he has a barber shop and he doesn't want to have to collect 23% on his haircut business.
You are such a coward you constantly violate the protocol here. Are you just afraid to ping me when you are talking about me or are you just that sniveling? What kind of loser does that over and over again? What is it you say in your shop? Next!
You know you can’t show any “cumulative effect” with payroll taxes (or any other taxes) because they don’t exist. So instead you went a long way to say the cumulative effect isn’t tax at all but added value and profit....Thanks for trying.
The FairTax has been called "the permission to live tax", why?
The income tax takes a share of what you have, the FairTax takes a share of what you need. Before you are permitted to eat - pay 30% to the government. Before you get medical care, pay 30% to the government. Before you get your prescription filled, pay 30% to the government. Want a roof over your head and heat in the winter, pay 30% to the government.Your child needs orthodontic work, pay 30% to the government. And if you pay for health insurance - why that's another 30% to the government
Another way to think of saving and investing is deferred consumption. You may scrimp and save, foregoing steak for tofu, and when the time comes to spend what you've saved, its 30% to the government (assuming that the FairTax rate is still 30%).
I see a consumption tax as not only giving control to the people, but it also expands the base.
Millions that circumvent the income tax now will not be able to do so under the Ftax. Illegals, drug dealers and so forth.
I support the same plan on the state and local level as well. In many states, property tax burden on homes is a serious problem.
Elderly folks or those who lose a job and so forth run the risk of losing their homes. Shifting the tax structure to consumption would eliminate the horrific governmental practice of taking a persons home.
Lets face it, noone likes taxation. It is one of those necessary evils. The best we can hope for is representatives that will treat OUR money with care, not reckless disregard.
I see a consumption tax as not only giving control to the people, but it also expands the base.
Millions that circumvent the income tax now will not be able to do so under the Ftax. Illegals, drug dealers and so forth.
I support the same plan on the state and local level as well. In many states, property tax burden on homes is a serious problem.
Elderly folks or those who lose a job and so forth run the risk of losing their homes. Shifting the tax structure to consumption would eliminate the horrific governmental practice of taking a persons home.
Lets face it, noone likes taxation. It is one of those necessary evils. The best we can hope for is representatives that will treat OUR money with care, not reckless disregard.
I support the same plan on the state and local level as well. In many states, property tax burden on homes is a serious problem.Dream on property taxes aren't going to be replaced by the Fairtax or any other tax. The Fairtax does however tax property taxes...in case you were wondering.
I should ask the same of you but I got an idea.
Expanded tax base doesn't mean more people pay taxes, it means current taxpayers pay tax on more transactions.
Millions that circumvent the income tax now will not be able to do so under the Ftax. Illegals, drug dealers and so forth.
So drug dealers will collect the FairTax and dutifully forward the taxes collected on to the government?
I support the same plan on the state and local level as well. In many states, property tax burden on homes is a serious problem.
Because state and local governments must also pay the FairTax on goods and services purchased as well as a 30% tax on pay and benefits for the people they employ (except those engaged in education), I would look for an increase in property taxes.
So drug dealers will collect the FairTax and dutifully forward the taxes collected on to the government?They'll also get a (GAG!) "prebate"...And given the love affair Washington has for illegals, so would they.
indeed... taxing the hell out of all the criminals will solve all our problems... Let’s start with all the politicians...
Huh?
Perhaps you should research a little deeper before answering.
What does “The fairtax does however tax property taxes” mean?
There are states with (consumption) sales taxes and or state income taxes in place of property taxes which are a direct burden on homeowners.
You are correct. My 2nd point addressed the collection of revenue from those who avoid it now via the underground economy.
>>So drug dealers will collect the FairTax and dutifully forward the taxes collected on to the government?”
When they buy expensive autos or boats or motorcycles or whatever they will be subject to the Federal tax on their illicit revenue. The current federal tax on income, they are not.
>>Because state and local governments must also pay the FairTax on goods and services purchased as well as a 30% tax on pay and benefits for the people they employ (except those engaged in education), I would look for an increase in property taxes.”
To touch on this last point of yours. In Texas, there are a few lawmakers attempting to address the issue of taxes levied on property, particularly homes. The main thrust of their legislation is to do away with property taxes that put an unfair burden on the HOME.
Taking the burden off the home, putting choice back into the peoples hands, eliminating the enforcement arm (IRS), reducing administrative / structural cost, and bringing tax simplicity to citizens lives are positives in my opinion.
So far, I’ve heard all the critical points of a fair tax coming from you and NO solutions.
Again, I ask, what is your solution to the current lopsided, unfair and horribly compicated present tax code?
Are you advocating that we keep the current tax code? Could you help me understand your point?
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.