Posted on 05/06/2009 11:57:23 AM PDT by Turret Gunner A20
Ok File, so you think a family of four taking in about $5000 a year in Rebate checks is not going to be spending $20,000 in retail?
I got news for you Filo, families will be spending more, much more that their Rebate checks because the Rebate check is limited as a percentage of income up to the poverty line. And nearly every person at or below the poverty line will be spending whatever they can get their hands on.
Is it possible that someone will not spend enough in retail to pay an NRST amount that is less than their Rebate? Very unlikely that could iccur. It would be a rarity, confined to those that are depending on others for their subsistence.
But here is what you forget Filo. Money hoarded from whatever source will eventually get deployed and find a path to spending. And most of that spending will be in the USA, ergo the tax and the money will meet with high probability.
Please don’t lecture people with your sophmoric views on what socialism is. Not only is it annoying but it drives more intelligent and refined readers away. They see at once you have nothing to offer other than hot gas and drubbed down gibberish. I would like them to stay around a bit.
Armed revolution and anarchy? Under the Constitution? Let’s see, there are hundreds of ways to redress grievances under the political system that operates in the USA. Armed revolution in the USA can therefore only be for anarchists.
The Reagan ‘revolution’ is a misnomer. It was a political movement. Revolution is understood ny historians to mean an overthrow of existing government models and replacing them eventually with another model, but often with anarchy in between. Yep, that’s a fact.
And you are for overthrowing the USA. And that will lead to anarchy and things that will not be in your control. But it is obvious from observing your intellectual level that although you may think of yourself highly enough to affect outcomes in the aftermath, you really have no capacity to do so in reality. You’re not even a dreamer Filo, you’re a basher who hallucinates frequently.
Yeah, reference to repeal of the 16th is included in the present bill. But there are better ways to tie them together. That’s the last major part of the FairTax legislation that is still in work.
You see Filo, a piece of legislation, especially an inspired piece of legislation like the FairTax H.R. 25, is worked and reworked until the bugs are out. One can work it or one can throw spitfalls from the peanut gallery like you do.
As for your crude and incorrect analogy to the FairTax being just another way to shoot, stab, bludgeon etc. in retardo, I think you need to learn an elementary fact and that is there are going to be taxes to pay whether you like them or not. But then again your interest is in anarchy so it figures you wouldn’t be serious to begin with.
As for the authority to distribute rebates, it is certainly within the authority of the Constitution to return taxes to people in a fair and equitable manner. The fairest means would be to give each qualified American the same amount up to the poverty line. That is not socialism, that is nothing more than a refund up to a limit.
And that goes back to your idea that a significant number of Americans are going to be paying less NRST than they take in a Rebate check. Once again ask yourself how many people are going to be living off others while hoarding Rebate checks? Not many is the answer, not enough to waste anyone’s time with. And even in the remote possibility that someone is found to have hoarded Rebate checks and not have spent a dime on NRST, then those hoarded checks converted to cash will eventially be spent. Oh yes they will. That cash will find a path to spending with 100% probability.
No Filo, you are barking up a tree with calling the Rebate some sort of socialist tool. It is a refund of NRST up to the poverty line pure and simple. It is the same for everyone. It is a refund, not a redistribution of wealth. Because spending is taxed under the FairTax and that means every person whether at, above or below the poverty level will be paying taxes through their spending.
The transparency of the FairTax is in the provision that the NRST rate will be voted on each year by Congress and signed into law by the President. That means each member of Congress will vote to raise the rate, lower the rate or keep it the same. There will be no other means of generating tax revenue for the government other than the FairTax with the exception of GSE’s such as the Post Office and current excise taxes such as federal fuel taxes.
It’s all in the legislation, only 134 pages in total.
You are not in any position to say that the SCOTUS in FDR’s time was under duress and therefore the Social Security is invalid. In this you are no more credible than a tax protestor who claims that the Income tax on wages is unconstitutional. You are both in the same category.
Understand this. It is the law whether you like it or not. It is not invalid. It may be bad law but it is what it is and you are subject to it. The only thing you are legally allowed to do is to work to change it, period.
DISCLOSURE:
This flame exchange is performed not because I enjoy it or relish in performing it, but as a forum service for readers and lurkers to ‘out FairTax bashers’ and their vapid shallow nonlogic means of trying to convince people that they have an argument.
“Boortz had the better idea, get people onboard with the FairTax, pass it but tie its enactment to repeal of the 16th. This would put unbelievable pressure on pols and states to kill the 16th quick.”
I disagree. IMHO, the political pressure would be much greater after voters/consumers have actually experienced the FairTax, not just heard about it in the abstract. When economic growth is substantial, good jobs are being created and all the hassle and frustration of the old system are just a bad dream, most Americans (of BOTH political persuasions) would be screaming at their legislators if the specter of returning to the old system were looming.
Many people fail to see the benefits of the FairTax now (as evidenced by this thread) or think it is politically impossible; after the FairTax is in place, the numbers of those two categories of American voters will shrink dramatically.
“As stated above, the tax is revenue neutral so the overall tax rate does not change. The government still swipes the same amount of productivity and all you’ve done is shift the burden somewhere.”
I picked this post out of many on this thread in which you asserted that out of control spending is the only issue facing the country today and therefore only measures which directly and immediately reduce spending are worth considering. You conveniently ignore congressional rules which require that tax reform proposals be revenue neutral.
You also ignore the indirect benefits that having a more visible and transparent tax regimen would have on spending.
More importantly, however, is that you ignore a number of adverse economic trends which MUST be addressed:
1. the spiral of complexity and higher and higher compliance costs which plague the current system,
2. the enormous trade deficit and ongoing erosion of our manufacturing sector,
3. the extremely low personal savings rate,
4. the federal budget deficit,
5. the crisis in SS & Medicare
What do all of these adverse economic trends have in common?
A. They are all unsustainable,
B. They are all exacerbated by our current dysfunctional tax system.
Other than spending restraint, nowhere in this thread does any FairTax opponent advance an alternative approach to dealing with the economic challenges that this country faces. We saw in 2000-2001 (with the tech stock bubble bursting) and are now experiencing (with the bursting of the housing bubble) what happens when adverse economic trends are ignored. We have a government which uses such crises as an excuse to spend trillions of $$$ that we don’t have and pass the bill along to future generations. When that approach is challenged, the response is: “you don’t expect us to do nothing, do you?”
No, we expect you to be more pro-active and address these adverse trends before they reach the crisis stage. The FairTax is an opportunity to address multiple adverse economic trends comprehensively and effectively.
You are certifiable. The Fair Tax is a Free Lunch program. Free Lunches don’t exist. There are flaws too numerous to count. the most scary is that we end up with a 40%+ sales tax Plus an emergency income tax only on the rich.
it’s for the children... and better the evil rich pay an income tax on their ill-gotten earnings than raising the FairTax rate on working Americans...
No thanks.
Phil, that all sounds good but it doesn’t play out that way.
What you call a ‘specter’ would actually be an unnoticed small income tax on the wealthy such as was done in 1913.
You can bet that the provision for sunsetting the FairTax if the 16th is not repealed, that this provision will be extended indefinitely. You can bet that at some point when people forget some of the horrors of the Income tax, that a liberal group will find a way to pass ‘a small tax on a very small group of extremely wealthy Americans’ with a ho-hum response from the public.
Unless the 16th is dead and buried, it will come back like a metastatic cancer.
Let the State FairTax movements pave the path. When voters see it can be done and with beneficial consequences, then we can say to them that it can be done on the national level as well, but only if the 16th is repealed.
Otherwise you are playing with fire and it is not necessary to take the risk.
Let’s see. In my post above to you, it was proven beyond doubt that you promote lies from FairTax bashing authors.
It was proven and you were called on it.
And yet you think that after readers review how you promote garbage and lies, fail to verify claims, you think you have an ounce of credibility for anyone to listen to you? Other than your fellow idiots?
I’ll keep nailing you with the previous post as a bulletin to those that are reading.
Try and spin your way out of it! You can’t!
Where is your proof that the FairTax will operate at all like you claim?
Most people who are not drinking the FairTax Kool-Aid can tell when a plan doesn’t make sense.
And since it doesn’t solve anything even if it worked as advertised (it wouldn’t) there is no reason for y’all to think you are doing something important by continuing to flog for this terrible idea.
You’d think even a FairTaxer would know that with a Dem President, a Dem Senate, and a Dem House, they are unlikely to get any bill that does all that they purport it to do through without it being made even worse than it already is.
You are living entirely in a dream world.
And one more thing... I don’t buy into the 30% FairTax rate that you all keep pushing. By my estimates the number would be much higher. You can look at my threads on the topic on my homepage to see my reasoning, I have no plans to spend time rehashing these arguments with FairTax kool-aid drinkers.
You are utterly incapable of rational discussion of this plan. Most of you don’t even understand it.
“More importantly, however, is that you ignore a number of adverse economic trends which MUST be addressed:”
“And of your list the FT addresses exactly one, and of them it is by far the least significant.”
That is incorrect; the FairTax addresses each and every one of them.
“Hell, I’d even support the Fair Tax if they’d just fix the glaring errors.
The current version is, however, too broken.”
I find it interesting that someone who doesn’t understand how the FairTax impacts the various adverse economic trends that this country faces and doesn’t understand how getting rid of imbedded taxes in the production chain leads to greater visibility refers to the “glaring errors” in the current proposal and refers to it as “too broken”.
“No it doesn’t. The FT is ‘revenue neutral’ and funds each of those problems/issues just as they are today.”
The FairTax is only revenue neutral if scored statically - which is what congress requires for consideration. You won’t find a single reputable economist who will agree that the economy is static, rather than dynamic.
Some have suggested as a goal doubling the size of the US economy within the first 15 years after the FairTax is enacted. If that goal is realized, then the revenue base for collecting SS & Medicare revenues would be doubled. If we stick to a payroll base for collecting these revenues, there is no way to double the base in 15 years because of the demographic bubble that we face today. Even if the economy isn’t doubled, it is still certain to grow at a much faster rate than will the labor force.
The FairTax is the only proposal that I am aware of which addresses the core issue with both of these programs, which is the demographic bubble and the unsustainable dependency of the system on payroll revenues. Without addressing that issue, the only way to address SS and Medicare’s insolvency is with enormous tax increases or benefit cuts, or a combination thereof.
That is just one example of how the FT addresses the adverse economic trends which I enumerated above. The fact that you, as well as most Americans, do not understand the relationship does not make it any less valid. This is one reason that we find that the more Americans understand the FT, the more strongly they support it.
I don’t have time to go into how the FT addresses the other adverse trends at the moment.
“And yet nobody on the FT side has yet put forth a credible argument as to why the economy would grow. The only thing that is changing is the method of taxation. The only possible improvement is the reduction (not elimination) of compliance costs.”
That statement is demonstrably false. There are good explanations on FR and other forums for why the FT would increase economic growth. The most important reasons are:
1. The FT eliminates the bias that the current tax system provides in favor of foreign producers over and above our own producers, both in foreign markets and also here at home in our own domestic market.
2. It eliminates several hundred billion $$$ in compliance costs - capital which would be freed up for far more productive pursuits.
3. The FT would facilitate the repatriation of much of the $10+ trillion which is trapped offshore by the current tax system.
There is virtually no debate among economists who have studied the FairTax that it would increase the rate of economic growth in this country. The degree of acceleration may be debatable, but not whether or not any increase will result.
The economic studies performed on the FT indicate that GDP growth of 10+% in the first year or two after passage are likely, with that rate gradually tapering off after that. However, even 10 years after implementation, GDP growth would be a fraction of a percent higher under the FT than under a continuation of the current system. By that time, the US economy would be 1/4 to 1/3 larger than it would have been under a continuation of the current system.
To put that 10+% GDP growth number in perspective, let’s remember that no American alive today has experienced a year in which the US economy grew at double digit rates. 4% is considered strong economic growth - a level we have not achieved since the late 90s. China’s economy is one of the fastest growing in the world and I don’t think they have hit 10% for a full year.
“The only way for the FT, or any program, to improve the economy is to collect less.....”
That’s a ridiculously simplistic view of tax reform and one that you won’t find any support for among respected economists.
Oh really? Because you say it? Time to take your meds Filo.
Since that is true the program becomes socialist. Period.
Ditto the previous.
And yet in the years you FT idiots have been spouting none of that has been incorporated. I wonder why?
No need to wonder Filo. You haven't read the latest version of the legislation. It doesn't mean it won't be changed though. And for you to call anyone an idiot is a tad beyond your own status, eh Filo Fredo?
The point we were discussing, since you clearly can't remember post to post, was that the FT does nothing to address spending which is a far more significant problem than collection.
For the upteenth time for your poor memory, the FairTax is Tax Law, not Spending Law.
And yet you cannot cite the portion of The Constitution that authorizes this, can you? Nope. You can't. There isn't one.
Sure there is Filo. It's crystal clear. Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes. Now the words 'lay' and 'collect' are not redundant. Lay means to establish for implementation and administration. The FairTax simply states that all RETAIL purchases AFTER spending beyond the poverty line shall be taxed at a rate set by Congress each year. This tax and how it is administered is completely Constitutional without the 16th Amendment by design.
How this 'taxation on spending above poverty' is administered can be done in a number of ways.
1. Honor system. People can say they spent more than the poverty level and volunteer to pay the NRST (never would work).
2. Smart cards can be issued to all qualified individuals and families to monitor their purchases (never happen and illegal intrusion).
3. Rebate every American the tax up to the poverty line. Yep, that will be workable using today's technology and capability. Too bad it wasn't feasible in 1913 or thereafter. We wouldn't have the 16th today.
Well Filo, that's your lesson for today.
Run along now unless of course you need to have one of your Fredo moments "I'm smart! I deserve respect!"
I don’t think anyone really cares what you ‘buy’ RobfromIdiotville, so long as you pay the NRST everything will be fine.
And don’t worry, I will repeat in due time on a regular basis the FSA (Forum Service Announcement) of how you promote lies and trash about the FairTax.
IIRC, the FairTax REQUIRES the repeal of the 16th Amendment.
That bad news is, given the sort of SCOTUS we might have, that might not protect us from an income tax. IIRC, the North had an income tax during the Civil War...
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.