Posted on 08/03/2004 8:09:52 AM PDT by CSM
The implementation of the Fair Tax would fail in short order if, as the question presupposes, the net effect on the poor would be the that they would be paying today's prices for a gallon of milk or a loaf of bread, plus a 23% sales tax.This sentance is misleading. It wouldn't be the price of a gallon of milk (whatever it ends up being) plus a 23% sales tax. It would be the price of a gallon of milk plus a 29.87% sales tax.
I'll accept nothing less!
Confusion, in addition to confustion.
;-)
That would depend on the house; newly built house - yes, previously owned house - no. The reason previously owned/used items are not taxed is that taxes were paid once on them. To tax them again would be double/muliple taxation on that item. That is where you can cut your tax bill, by buying used items and doing repairs/services yourself.
No, it is with SS & medicare included. That way those on them are still able to get it, while others can invest in their own futures with the freed up money.
Absolutely. I was gonna say the same thing, but didn't want to make the post too long. And since poverty isn't static, why continue to make so much public policy based on the needs of a fluid population?
I think anyone who's been a student, or a young married w/kids, or a young married student w/kids :) knows what poverty is and certainly doesn't plan their life around being in that status the rest of their life.
You are correct, basically you are paying for the taxes on the materials and the labor used to build the house, landscape, etc.
No, its like the standard deduction on your income tax. As the article says, its based upon what a family the size of yours is expected to spend on necessities (however that is defined) and you get the tax on that baseline amount rebated, whether you spend that amount, or more, or less.
The thing about the VAT is that it is hidden from consumers. Is it applied to used items that you buy? If so, that would mean that you would have multiple taxation on an item.
If we are going to compare apples to apples when we talk about tax systems shouldn't we use the same language in both cases?
Yes the tax deductions would disappear, but then your property would become more valuable due to more people able to afford it when you decide to sell (they would have more income and would not have to pay any sales taxes on a previously owned home).
Wouldn't it be a lot simpler to exempt the necessities - food, clothing, medicine, shelter, and tax the rest? Then you don't need to trck everyone's address or bank account to send monthly checks.
And with all the talking over this issue, why can't anyone come up with a reasonable explanation of what the embeeded tax is, and how high it is? Every article has new figures.
You're right. Not to mention the reduction of the IRS, tax courts, and all the associated overheard. It would be a huge savings in bureaucracy.
The fastest and best way to eliminate ALL of that instantly is to eliminate the entire tax code as it exists now. Without question, the greatest amount of money and lobbying done in DC is in regardes to the tax code.
There is something even easier. My liberal dad proposed it to me a few years ago. Its really very simple, and it provides for unlimited freedom of political speech with no corrupting influence.
Anyone can give a much money as they like to any political campaign or organization as often as they like ... BUT ... all the giving is done anonymously through a single-blind process, say run by the FEC. So you can give $10 million to Candidate X 4 times a year, but Candidate X would not be told who gave him the money once it is channeled to his account. He would just see a total of daily deposits from contributors.
I predict this would very successfully take the money out of politics.
See posts 14 & 40.
Would the poverty level be jiggered by area of the country? Its more expensive to live in NYC or LA than in Dubuque.
First off you have NEVER shot anything out of the water to my recollection and secondly why is it wrong to describe someones purchase of a $2.00 gallon of milk $1.54 for milk and $.46 Tax as a 23% tax when that is EXACTLY what it is?
How do you figure that? That would allow the Soro's and hollywood elites give more and without anyone knowing they are doing it. How would you know that Quinten Tarantino (or whomever) is not donating millions to Kerry so you could not choose to boycot his films?
Correction:
How do you figure that? That would allow the Soro's and hollywood elites give more and without anyone knowing they are doing it. How would you know that Quinten Tarantino (or whomever) is donating millions to Kerry so you could not choose to boycot his films?
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.