Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

FairTax - The Advocates Strike Back
Mike Moffat and Al Ose | June 2006 | Mike Moffatt and Al Ose

Posted on 06/07/2006 3:47:07 PM PDT by pigdog

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-178 last
To: xcamel
Then show us how you demonstrate such a "fraud". Loudly yelling and screaming the word means nothing at all.
161 posted on 06/08/2006 4:11:44 PM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: lewislynn

Someone please find the crayons for this poster to amuse himself with.


162 posted on 06/08/2006 4:13:36 PM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Your Nightmare
Certainly is is nothing if not real - and certainly not "theoretical".

Buying a thing at retail is when the item is consumed from a tax standpoint and your attempts to shilly-shally and misdirect to define consumption to be only when you "use up" a thing as consumption is truly nonsense.

For the purposes of the FairTax the purchase and paying the tax thereon IS consumption and that's the way it is considered in the bill. The sad thing about all this is that you certainly know this amd are merely being intentionally obtuse ... no one is that stupid.
163 posted on 06/08/2006 4:19:44 PM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Your Nightmare
That's not true either but since you're so unaccomplished in things economic I'll not waste time explaining it to you.

It's merely better to let everyone know how beneficial the FairTax will be to this country - even to those who now fight against it like you.
164 posted on 06/08/2006 4:22:33 PM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Your Nightmare
Of course you'll probably pretend the term "NRST" means something other than the FairTax, but if you mean the FairTax, this is one of the most incorrect statements you've posted on this thread - and there's a lot to choose from.
165 posted on 06/08/2006 4:25:27 PM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Your Nightmare

Since you seem to (wish to) not understand the point, I've carefully explained it again to you in #163, q.v.


166 posted on 06/08/2006 4:27:41 PM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Your Nightmare
And it's not JUST "corporate income taxes" as you well know, but all business income taxes that are involved. And the VAT-like I.T. cascades through them all - adding unnecessarily to the costs of things. That's one of the reasons why prices will drop with the advent of the FairTax.
Not only that but:
You don't seem to understand that the hidden taxes are not taxes paid into the Treasury Dept. as income tax (business or otherwise) but are prices increased by the cascading of business income tax costs into prices that are passed on to further levels in the production/distribution chain. They cause artificially increased prices due to downstream income taxes that have cascaded into increased costs for things eventually bought by consumers.

You SQL Studs don't grasp the concept but most who think about it will certainly understand that prices are artificially boosted due solely to taxes that businesses pay and these inflated prices are merely a hidden tax on the consumer that is in addition to any income taxes paid.

Your and the other Squirrels' efforts of trying to claim that the discussion relates to taxes paid to the government are meaningless. The discussion is about prices (not taxes) being needlessly inflated by such hidden taxes. That's why they are called "hidden". DUH!!!

518 posted on 03/02/2006 7:15:48 PM PST by pigdog

It's all of that AND a VAT!?

After trying to read any logic into that rant about taxes not going to the government treasury as tax (where do they go?) it's hard to figure which is hidden, the tax in the price or the price in the tax.

167 posted on 06/09/2006 12:09:08 AM PDT by lewislynn (Fairtax = lies, hope, wishful thinking, conjecture and lack of logic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: lewislynn

That was classic pigdog.


168 posted on 06/09/2006 5:47:37 AM PDT by Your Nightmare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: lewislynn

As you've demonstrated you should never, NEVER attempt "figuring". None of you disciples grasp the hidden tax concept - of course not, since doing so destroys your incorrect notion that prices will rise after the I.T. is removed and before the FairTax is applied.

You also keep trying to claim wages will decline or at leasy fall to existing takehome values. That's wrong, too.

So post all the out of context snippets you wish; you're not going to alter the truth (nor even admit it, apparently).


169 posted on 06/09/2006 7:04:31 AM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Your Nightmare
Where you are so short sighted is to think that there IS such a term of ridicule as "classic pigdog".

And, hey, what sort of advice on your life's quest did the Moderator offer? We'd all like to hear it so that we may gain a few gems from it. How about letting us all know?

After all you were eager (actually MORE than eager) to try the "clever" little banning tactic in #26 figuring you'd win the debate that way so why not share the results? What you don't seem to realize is that there are many other "pigdogs" waiting to pick up where I leave off ... and some of them aren't NEARLY so polite and gentle as I.

Please let us know what you were advised (I love to hear that Harry S. Truman quote in full when it so clearly applies).
170 posted on 06/09/2006 7:16:42 AM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: pigdog
pigdog:
The amount of taxes collected from the higher prices under the embedded taxes of the present system are actually quite small. I gave an example of a $100 purchase that ended up with (very generously) a $3.75 tax revenue amount which, under the FairTax, would have been $23.00.

The tax "contribution" of an income tax system is on the profit involved which is even smaller than the higher prices caused by the tax cascading. One determines that using arithmetic, BTW.

341 posted on 07/24/2005 1:49:04 AM PDT by pigdog

I guess I missed what part of the "quite small" amount collected is the VAT.

I gave an example of a $100 purchase that ended up with (very generously) a $3.75 tax revenue amount which, under the FairTax, would have been $23.00.
Reading that sentence makes it hard to guess which side of the issue you're on...The big government exorbitant tax ($23.00 Fairtax VS. $3.75 income tax) side I guess.
171 posted on 06/09/2006 7:26:35 AM PDT by lewislynn (Fairtax = lies, hope, wishful thinking, conjecture and lack of logic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: pigdog

They haven't given any advice, but I do notice you haven't called anyone names since then.


172 posted on 06/09/2006 7:55:58 AM PDT by Your Nightmare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: pigdog
So post all the out of context snippets you wish; you're not going to alter the truth
All of your rants are out of context but how does reposting anything you've said alter the truth?...unless there's no truth to what you've said.
173 posted on 06/09/2006 8:39:36 AM PDT by lewislynn (Fairtax = lies, hope, wishful thinking, conjecture and lack of logic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: lewislynn
"I guess I missed what part of the "quite small" amount collected is the VAT."

Actually, poddner, you missed a lot more than that ... you missed the entire point of the discussion.

What was being discussed was NOT what part of the amount paid in embedded taxes was part of a VAT (which was not even being discussed at all, but thanks for the extraneous insertion of terms).

The topic was about the tax contribution of an illegal alien when he purchases things presently versus when he purchases under the FairTax. And the rationale was that almost the only tax paid by these criminals WAS that portion of income tax embedded in the prices of the things they buy.

A number of the uninformed/dishonest were claiming that the "tax contribution" from their retail purchases presently were essentially equal to what they would pay under the FairTax. I believe the term you all typically used was "it's a wash".

I had presented some examples that showed this clearly not to be the case and the the "contribution" presently in the example given was something like $3.75 while under the FairTax the amount would have been $23.00.

The point was, of course, that is is not at all "a wash" and it had nothing at all to do with a VAT or any other tax form. Your trying to misuse by OOC (out of context) posting is clever (but not very).

In fact my estimate of the $3.75 amount represented the entire I.T. "contribution". In fact, if one used the nonsensical (and doubtless incorrect) figure of 7 to 8 percent that you present as embedded tax that will be eliminated from pricing under the FairTax), the "contribution" would be much less than $3.75 at present (vs. $23 with the FairTax).

It's not a wash at all!!

174 posted on 06/09/2006 8:42:52 AM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: lewislynn

Could you rephrase that to something meaningful?? Or at least understandable??


175 posted on 06/09/2006 8:46:13 AM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Your Nightmare

That's because I can't stand to see a grown man cry ... but my hankie's still at the ready if you burst into tears suddenly again.


176 posted on 06/09/2006 8:52:31 AM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: Your Nightmare

"Do you support the Flat Tax?"

What is "the Flat Tax"?


177 posted on 06/11/2006 8:29:39 AM PDT by phil_will1 (My posts are in no way limited or restricted by previously expressed SQL opinions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Your Nightmare

"Do you support the income tax?"

"No. I support the Flat Tax."

Every "Flat Tax" proposal that I have seen is a version of income tax, the primary difference theoretically being that the rtae chart only has one level. I say "theoretically" because a couple of the so-called "flat tax" proposals in congress are income tax bills with more than one level in the rate chart.

Saying that you don't support an income tax, but rather "the Flat Tax" is therefore misleading and deceptive.

PS: Have you officially sworn off the VAT?


178 posted on 06/11/2006 8:36:47 AM PDT by phil_will1 (My posts are in no way limited or restricted by previously expressed SQL opinions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-178 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson