Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Neal Boortz supports fair tax proposal?
Neal Boortz web site ^ | Friday, December 10, 2004 | Neal Boortz

Posted on 12/17/2004 4:38:48 AM PST by JOHN W K

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-319 next last
To: NonValueAdded
The only fair tax is the flat tax.

Wrong.

Income taxes, flat or otherwise, are fundamentally flawed from their very inception.

If you go out into the pasture, find a big fat juicy cowpie and flatten it, it is still a cowpie.

51 posted on 12/17/2004 10:38:49 AM PST by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K; ancient_geezer; Principled; PhilWill; Taxman
Instead of making every American family dependant on a monthly government welfare check [family consumption allowance], and ration tax-free basic necessities, why don’t the architects of the so called fair tax simply prohibit taxing the necessities of life [food, shelter, clothing, medical expenses, etc]??

-- Because then you will have the government saying what is and what isn't a necessity. Why would medical expenses be a necessity to a healthy person? Why would shelter be a necessity to a person who already owns their home free and clear? OR how about a farmer who grows his own food? On top of that, if Congress can decide what it and what isn't a necessity, the lobbyists will make the FairTax Code as complicated as the current code. Apples would be taxes, buyt the Citrus lobby would see to it that oranges weren't, for example.

In regard to Neal’s comment that “It doesn't matter that paying taxes will be voluntary under the Fair Tax plan , let us explore this concept a little bit further.

-- You miss the entire point. If a person only buys enough consumable items up to the poverty line, he in effect PAYS NO TAXES. Any level of consumption above that will raise his rate above 0%. This makes it completely voluntary.

-- Again, we arrive at your argument that an indirect tax on a necessity is in fact a direct tax. Well, that may be true IF IT WEREN'T FOR THE FAMILY CONSUMPTION ALLOWANCE! Basically, the FCA is an exemption on necessities; it's just that individual Americans get to decide what is and what isn't a necessity for themselves. Do you believe that Americans are uncapable of making such a decision? By not exempting individual goods, the government's ability to conduct social engineering is vastly reduced.

-- Now, we obviously disagree on the FairTax. I believe that the FairTax is the best tax system that could realistically be implemented. The perfect tax system in my opinion, however, would be a constitutional requirement that states pay their share of the budget according to their representation in Congress. As a student of the Constitution, you are fully aware of the beauty of the concept of apportionment. Under such a system, the BEST method of taxation would emerge within the states: States would strive to find the most efficient, cost-effective way to collect taxes. However, I don't think that this plan could ever be implemented; or if it was implemented, how would it be enforced?

-- By the way, what is your plan for tax reform? How would you reform the system without budget cuts???

52 posted on 12/17/2004 10:39:59 AM PST by Remember_Salamis (Freedom is Not Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded

Would that be a flat tax with or without the payroll tax?

Keep in mind that the Payroll tax is anything but flat.

And even if we exclude the Payroll Tax question, the flat tax is still regressive and NOT flat. All corporate taxes (including compliance costs) are embedded in the price of goods. Those at the lower end of the economic totem pole consume more as a percentage of their income.

The only true flat tax is the FairTax! People can decide what tax rate they are willing to pay.


53 posted on 12/17/2004 10:43:23 AM PST by Remember_Salamis (Freedom is Not Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer
THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF FUNDAMENTAL TAX REFORM....I don't give a rat's ass about studies...the bottom line is: will "fundamental tax reform" ensnare us deeper into serfdom, or will it make us more free?

The ONLY reason that the United States of America is in the position in the world that she is is because that we, the people enjoy the highest level of freedom of all the nations of the world and have since we were born as a nation. Rush keeps beating this thru our heads, but I knew it long before Rush came on the scene. So does it not stand to reason that if we do well as 40-50% slaves, we would do a lot better if we were free-er....say if we were only 10-20% slaves? free from the internal revenue service and with less regulations.

Besides......studies have outcomes based on the agenda of the one doing the study, or the one who is paying for the study......no "study" is completely unbiased. The only way we will know for sure what the economic impact of anything is to try it....anything else is opinions and guesses.

54 posted on 12/17/2004 10:46:30 AM PST by B.O. Plenty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K
I suspect Neal simply has not had time to really study the proposal in depth.

It's funny you should say that. He's writing a book on the topic now, so I'd say he's studied up on it a bit. ;oP

55 posted on 12/17/2004 10:52:32 AM PST by alnick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded

yikes.

That give's my family a tax bill of > $26,000.

Talk about burdoning the poor. That is the entire income for some families and pocket change to others.

So the wealth of an individual (whether measured in income or in consuption) should make no difference?


56 posted on 12/17/2004 10:54:00 AM PST by kpp_kpp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis

I do agree that unprocessed foods (raw materials for making meals) should be untaxed. There would be a huge surge in people cooking meals from food bought at the local farmer's market.

I would happily give up the rebate to leave primary housing and unprocessed foods untaxed.


57 posted on 12/17/2004 10:57:55 AM PST by kpp_kpp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K
From your document:

On rum, per gallon,——or a dollar; on all other spiritual liquors——; on molasses——; on Madeira wine——; on all other wines——; on common bohea teas per Ib.——; on all other teas——; on pepper——; on brown sugars——; on loaf sugars——; on all other sugars——} on cocoa and coft'ee——on all other articles——per cent, on their value at the time and place of im-pui tation. That there ought, moreover, to be levied on all vessels in which goods, wares, or merchandises shall be imported, the duties following, viz. On all vessels built within the United States, and belonging wholly to citizens thereof, at the rate of——per ton. On all vessels belonging wholly to the subjects of Powers with whom the United States have formed treaties, or partly to the subjects of such Powers, and partly to citizens of the said State*, at the rale of—— On all vessels belonging wholly or in part to the subjects of other Powers, at the rate of——

-- You have just proved our point for us. these taxes levied were CONTEMPORARY! They had to summarily be picked and chosen. Presumably, under your system Congress would have to do that same thing now. And what would they choose??? What would they not choose??? They would most likely choose the items that their political contributors wanted, or those that would benefit the party. Your source doecument does not tell us what should and should not be taxed in 2005. Congress would have to do that!

58 posted on 12/17/2004 11:12:18 AM PST by Remember_Salamis (Freedom is Not Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

APRIL 9, 1789.]
[H. OF R.

OF DEBATES IN CONGRESS.

Duties on Imports.

Introduce to the committee a subject, which appears to me to be of the greatest magnitude; a subject, sir that requires our first attention, and our united exertions.
No gentleman here can be unacquainted with the numerous claims upon our justice; nor with the impotency which prevented (he late Congress of the, United States from carrying into effect the dictates of gratitude and policy.
The union, by the establishment of a more effective government, having recovered from the stale of imbecility that heretofore prevented a performance of its duty, ought, in its first act, to revive those principles! of honor and honesty that have too long lain dormant.
The deficiency in our Treasury has been too notorious to make it necessary for me to animadvert upon that subject. Let us content ourselves with endeavoring to remedy the evil. To do this a national revenue must be obtained; but the system must be such a one, that, while it secures the object of revenue, it shall not be oppressive to our constituents. Happy it is for us that such a system is within our power; for I apprehend that both these objects may be obtained from au impost on articles imported into the United States.
In pursuing this measure, I know that two points occur for our consideration. The first respects the general regulation of commerce; which, in my opinion, ought to be as free as (Fie policy of nations will admit. The second relates to revenue alone; and this is the point I mean more particularly to bring into the view of the committee.
Not being at present possessed of sufficient materials for fully elucidating these points, and our situation admitting of no delay, I shall propose such articles of regulations only as are likely to occasion the least difficulty.
The propositions made on this subject by Congress in 1783, having received, generally, the approbation of (he several States of the Union, in some form ov other, seem well calculated to become (he basis of the temporary system, which I wish (he committee to adopt. I am well aware that the changes which have (taken place in many of the States, and in our public circumstances, since that period, will require, in spine degree, a deviation from the scale of du-1ies then affixed: nevertheless, for the sake of that expedition which is necessary, in order to embrace the spring importations, I should recommend a general adherence to the plan.
This, sir, with the addition of a clause or two on the subject of tonnage, I will now read, and, with leave, submit it to (he committee, hoping it may meet their approbation, as an expedient rendered eligible by the urgent occasion there is for the speedy supplies of the federal treasury, and a speedy rescue of our trade from its present anarchy.

Resolved, As the opinion of this committee, that the following' duties ought to be levied on goods, waves, and merchandise, imported into the United States, viz: 9

On rum, per gallon,——of a dollar; on all other spirituous liquors——; on molasses——; on Madeira wine——; on all other wines——; on common bohea teas per lb.——; on all other teas——; on pepper——; on brown sugars——; on loaf sugars——; on all other sugars——; on cocoa and coffee——on all other articles——per cent, on their value at the time and place of importation.
That there ought, moreover, to be levied on all vessels in which goods, wares, or merchandises shall be imported, the duties following, viz. On all vessels built within the United States, and belonging wholly to citizens thereof, at the rate of——per ton.
On all vessels belonging wholly to the subjects of Powers with whom the United States have formed treaties, or partly to the subjects of such Powers, and partly to citizens of the said States, at the rate of——

On all vessels belonging wholly or in part to the subjects of other Powers, at the rate of—

Mr. BOUDJNOT.—The necessity of adopting some measure, like the one proposed by the honorable gentleman from Virginia, is too apparent to need any argument in its support. The plan which he, has submitted to the committee appears to be simple and sufficiently complete for the present purpose; I shall, therefore, for my own part, be content with it, and shall move you, sir, that (he blanks be filled up in the manner they were recommended to be charged by Congress in 1783. My reason for this is, that those sums have been approved by the Legislatures of every State represented on this floor, and of consequence must have been agreeable to the sense of our constituents at that time; and; I believe, nothing since has intervened to give us reason to believe they have made an alteration in their sentiments.
Mr. WHITE.—I wish filling up the blanks may be deferred until the business is more matured; nor will this be attended with a loss of time, because (he forms necessary to complete a bill will require so much as to give gentlemen leisure to consider the proper quantum of impost to be laid, as well on the enumerated articles as on the common mass of merchandise rated ad valorem; for, as was hinted by my colleague, something may have occurred to render an alteration in the sums recommended in 1783 in some degree necessary; and if so, time will be given to consider the subject with more attention in the progress of the bill, and no unnecessary delay can arise; wherefore, I move you, sir, that the committee now rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Mr. MADISON.—I do not consider it at this moment necessary to fill up the blanks, nor had I it in contemplation at (the time I offered the propositions. I supposed that most of the gentlemen would wish time to think upon the principles generally, and upon the articles particularly; white others, who, from then-situation and advantages in life, are more conversant on this.


59 posted on 12/17/2004 11:12:35 AM PST by Remember_Salamis (Freedom is Not Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
They simply do not understand that all it takes is 1 business to drop the price and all the rest MUST follow or die.

-- Thank you!

60 posted on 12/17/2004 11:15:01 AM PST by Remember_Salamis (Freedom is Not Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded
And a NST is voluntary? Hardly.

Yes the Fair Tax is voluntary. You voluntarily buy stuff retail (necessities up to the poverty level are pre-bated), and if you want something else you can buy it used. In other words, one would voluntarily buy a new IPOD and pay the tax, or that person could elect to buy it used. Therefore, the tax is voluntary.

Voluntary taxes are what the Fore Fathers had in mind. This commie crap about progressive taxes and forcing individuals to give up a portion of their life at the point of a gun is evil incarnate. It fundamentally breaches my right to not only privacy, but also to private property.

61 posted on 12/17/2004 11:15:15 AM PST by numberonepal (Don't Even Think About Treading On Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded

The FairTax is across the board on all goods and services, not item-by-item.


62 posted on 12/17/2004 11:16:17 AM PST by Remember_Salamis (Freedom is Not Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: kpp_kpp
I would happily give up the rebate to leave primary housing and unprocessed foods untaxed.

-- That's easy for you to say. What about peopel who already own their own homes? Why do they need a tax break on buying "shelter" if they already own it??? Shouldn't they be able to use that money on something else? YES! And that's exactly what the FairTax does by giving everybody a "prebate".

63 posted on 12/17/2004 11:21:36 AM PST by Remember_Salamis (Freedom is Not Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis

As a student of the Constitution, you are fully aware of the beauty of the concept of apportionment. Under such a system, the BEST method of taxation would emerge within the states: States would strive to find the most efficient, cost-effective way to collect taxes. However, I don't think that this plan could ever be implemented; or if it was implemented, how would it be enforced?

The same way they enforced that scheme back when they tried it, by holding the property owner's land and properties as hostage to the good performance by the state, not a very popular or effective way to make sure states pay the tax, but sure hit's the guy who owned any land:

Direct taxes by definition are a levy against property owners or capitation taxes.

Hylton v. United States(1796), 3 U.S. 171

  • "A general power is given to Congress, to lay and collect taxes, of every kind or nature, without any restraint, except only on exports; but two rules are prescribed for their government, namely, uniformity and apportionment: Three kinds of taxes, to wit, duties, imposts, and excises by the first rule, and capitation, or other direct taxes, by the second rule. "
  • "the present Constitution was particularly intended to affect individuals, and not states, except in particular cases specified: And this is the leading distinction between the articles of Confederation and the present Constitution."
  • "Uniformity is an instant operation on individuals, without the intervention of assessments, or any regard to states,"
  • "[T]he DIRECT TAXES contemplated by the Constitution, are only two, to wit, A CAPITATION OR POLL TAX, simply, without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance; and a tax on LAND."
  •  

    Apportionment just means the property owners of a state get to pay the apportioned amount regardless of the true value of the properties. The government adjust rates in each state individually against the value of land in the state, for the amount apportioned according to population.

    Property poor states with large populations have a problem in this scheme.

     

    United States Statutes at Large

    Thirteenth Congress Session. I. Ch. 16. 1813

    Chapter XVI. An Act for the assesment and collection of direct taxes and internal duties.(a)
    Sec. 1 Establishment of of direct tax collection districts
    Sec. 2 Qualifications & Appointment of assessor & collector for disticts.
    • freeholder appointed by President
    Sec. 3 Assessor to divide tax district into assessment districts, under supervision of the Secretary of Treasury, and appoint freeholders as assistant assessors.
    Sec. 4 The Secretary of the Treasury shall establish regulations suitable and necessary for carrying act into effect.
    • "assessors shall on such day as may be fixed by law laying such a tax, direct and cause the several assistant assessors in the district, to inquire after and concerning all lands, lost of ground with their imponements, dewlling houses and slaves, made liable to taxation, under any direct tax so laid by the authority of the United States."
    • "value and enumerate the said objects of taxation ...in conformity with the regulations and instructions above mentioned."
    Sec. 5 Direct tax laid on all property except State or Federally owned properties.
    Sec. 6 Assistants shall require property owners, caretakers or managers to provide lists of taxable property..
    Sec. 7 Assistant may assist in preparing a written list for those who are unprepared to exhibit a written list when required.
    Sec. 8 Person delivering or preparing a false or fraudulent list shall be subject to fine on conviction before a court of competent jurisdiction and pay all costs and charges of prosecution.
    Sec. 9 Written notice to deliver property list to assessor when person absent from property when assessor calls to receive such a list.
    Sec. 10 If any person on being notified or required to present property list, refuses or neglects to give such, the district assessor is authorised to make the list to the best he can obtain on his own view and information. A person so failing, except for reason of health or absense from home, shall forfeit and pay a $100 plus costs of suit to recover.
    Sec. 11 District assessor shall make property list for properties which owner or managers are not resident and present in the district.
    Sec. 12 None resident owners of property as above, can provide a list on their own, rather than the assessor making list above.
    Sec. 13 Assistant assessors shall make lists of persons liable to pay tax on properties, with the value and assessment of the objects liable to taxation and when required by principle assessor the amount of direct tax, within each district.
    Sec. 14 Principal assessor shall advertise in newspapers and by written notifications the place where assessment lists may be seen and examined to receive appeals regarding erroneous or excessive assessments.
    Sec. 15 Whenever Quotas or portions of direct tax payable by the states, shall be laid and apportioned by law on the counties, state, or state districts. The principal assessor shall have power to revise, adjust, and equalise the valuation of properties by deducting or adding a percentage as shall appear just and equitable.
    Sec. 16 Lists of the property taxed made out.
    Sec. 17 Accessors furnish collectors with taxable lists
    Sec. 18 Bonds to be given and approved by the Comptroller of the Treasury
    Sec. 19 Assessed taxes to remain a lien upon the estates of persons to which they belong
    ... ...

    64 posted on 12/17/2004 11:28:39 AM PST by ancient_geezer (Don't reform it, Replace it!!)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

    To: Remember_Salamis

    it would take 10 years of "pre-bates" to a family of 5 to make up the difference over not taxing the purchase of a 200,000 home.

    there is no way of moving to a NST without offending many, many people, but i'd still prefer they find a way to do it without having to offer the pre-bate which you do have to register for and still provides for government influence over social planning (head-of-households/marriage/children).

    switch to a fair-tax that has no influence over family structures and you've eliminated most of the desire for gays to want marriage "rights".


    65 posted on 12/17/2004 11:33:13 AM PST by kpp_kpp
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

    To: kpp_kpp
    it would take 10 years of "pre-bates" to a family of 5 to make up the difference over not taxing the purchase of a 200,000 home.

    The imbedded tax on a $200,000 home that you would pay today if you bought that house is @ $50,000

    66 posted on 12/17/2004 11:36:32 AM PST by Phantom Lord
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

    To: JOHN W K
    Does your flat tax impose a tax upon the wages which labor has earned?

    No, it doesn't. Actually, the NRST is a lot closer to the way the Founding Fathers raised the majority of funds for the nation. The government was initially funded primarily thought excise taxes. The NRST is much closer to that than the income taxes.

    Mark

    67 posted on 12/17/2004 11:42:08 AM PST by MarkL (Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. But it rocks absolutely, too!)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

    To: Conservative Goddess
    The Fair Tax will remove power from Gobbermint, and restore it to the people.

    And I'm afraid that this is the reason we'll never see it, at least not without dragging our legislators, kicking and screaming, probably at "pitchfork point!"

    Mark

    68 posted on 12/17/2004 11:44:34 AM PST by MarkL (Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. But it rocks absolutely, too!)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

    To: kpp_kpp

    First off, are they buying a new or a used home? If a it's a used home, no tax is paid.

    Secondly, how much more money are they taking home each month?

    Thirdly, the land underneath the home is not taxed. Only the structure itself is taxed.

    Fourthly, this family could save up to buy a home much faster under the NRST.

    Fifthly, The FairTax will most likely have a provision that the NRST on a primary home can be paid over the life of the mortgage, similar to how property taxes are paid. This is what the CATO Institute's version of the NRST calls for.

    All issues settled???


    69 posted on 12/17/2004 11:53:12 AM PST by Remember_Salamis (Freedom is Not Free)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

    To: Remember_Salamis
    fine. for the sake of argument i'll concede. (if it is only on new homes and only on the structure, not the land, then it is much more palatable.)

    my issues is with the welfaristic, social-structure influence that the pre-bates give to the government. (a) i don't like the basis of them in the first place, (b) they open the door to manipulation.

    the only way i could buy into some type of pre-bate would be if it were along the lines of "per human"/legal-resident. the whole idea of head-of-household, parents, and one dollar amount for adults and another for children, etc., etc. is still providing too much control to the federal government to influence social policy.

    either go all one way or all the other. let the government support traditional family structures and the raising of children or let it be completely neutral. i say for taxation purposes let it be completely neutral.
    70 posted on 12/17/2004 12:05:45 PM PST by kpp_kpp
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

    To: B.O. Plenty

    So does it not stand to reason that if we do well as 40-50% slaves, we would do a lot better if we were free-er....say if we were only 10-20% slaves?

    Ahem, HR25 is a 23% tax, designed to be revenue neutral against 1997 tax law, pre-Bush administration tax cuts.

    Make the Bush tax cuts permanent, you have your less than 20% rate:

    from Tax Freedom Day 2004 PDF http://www.taxfoundation.org/sr129.pdf

     

    Total Effective Tax Rates by Level of Government
    Percent Net National Product(NNP)

    Year Federal State Total
    1998 22.4% 10.4% 32.8%
    1999 22.5% 10.4% 32.9%
    2000 23.1% 10.4% 33.5%
    2001 22.2% 10.5% 32.7%
    2002 1 19.7% 10.2% 29.2%
    2003 2 18.5% 10.1% 28.6%
    2004 3 17.9% 10.0% 27.9%
    Notes: Leap day is omitted to make dates comparable over time. Positive and negative percentages in parentheses after legislation indicate the first-year fiscal impact of the bill,measured as a percentage of NNP. Since depreciation is not available to pay taxes, GDP is an overstatement of spendable income for the purpose of measuring tax burdens. Depreciation is netted out of NNP.

    1 Economic Growth and Tax Reform Reconciliation Act of 2001
    2 The Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002
    3 Job Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003

    Sources: Office of Management and Budget; Internal Revenue Service; Congressional Research Service; National Bureau of Economic Research; Treasury Department; and Tax Foundation calculations.

     

     

    free from the internal revenue service and with less regulations.

    No IRS, the retail business collects the tax right along with state retail taxes, and remits it to his state retail tax adminstration.

    H.R.25, S.1493
    A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.

    Refer for additional information: http://www.fairtax.org, http://www.salestax.org & http://www.geocities.com/cmcofer/ftax.html

     


     

    studies have outcomes based on the agenda of the one doing the study, or the one who is paying for the study......no "study" is completely unbiased.

    Suggest you find out about the study done and the person who did it. You will find the person does not support retail sales taxes, and the study was done for reasons other than supporting retail sales taxes.

    Your right no study is completely unbiased, they can however have a result that is independant as a result of modeling and paramaters based in empirical measures as Jorgensons intertemporal equilibrium model studies are.

    If you look abit closer, Jorgenson is in the game of selling his models and methodology for studying economies and the effects of regulation, and not in the business of generating particular results.

    Another paper done for presentation to JCT in his effort to convince them to use his dynamic estimation methods rather than the distribution tables in current use.

    The Effects of Fundamental Tax Reform and the
    Feasibility of Dynamic Revenue Estimation

    by
    Dale W. Jorgenson and Peter J. Wilcoxen
    January 1997
    http://wilcoxen.cp.maxwell.syr.edu/papers/jct.pdf

     

    The example taxes compared in that paper are the Flat Tax and a VAT against the '97 tax law. The 1999 study is just a more uptodate revision with the models empirical parameters adjusted up through 1999 economic conditions and a bare bones NRST replacing the VAT calculations.

    The only way we will know for sure what the economic impact of anything is to try it....anything else is opinions and guesses.

    There is little to be said in favor of blind jumps into an swimming pool. It sometimes help to check if the water is present, before leaping.

    71 posted on 12/17/2004 12:07:57 PM PST by ancient_geezer (Don't reform it, Replace it!!)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

    To: JOHN W K

    What an extraordinary load of crap. The fair tax is vastly better than the nonsense we have now.


    72 posted on 12/17/2004 12:10:37 PM PST by Sloth (Al Franken is a racist.)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

    To: JOHN W K

    mark to read later.


    73 posted on 12/17/2004 12:12:26 PM PST by RobFromGa (End the Filibuster for Judicial appointments in January 05)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

    To: kpp_kpp

    the only way i could buy into some type of pre-bate would be if it were along the lines of "per human"/legal-resident.

    That happens to be the basis on which it is implemented.

    All legal residents will receive a monthly demogrant called the Family Consumption Allowence(FCA) equivalent to the FairTax paid on essential goods and services, also known as the poverty level expenditures. The FCA is paid in advance, in equal installments each month. The size of the monthly FCA will be determined by the government's Poverty Level for a particular family size, multiplied by the tax rate, and paid to all households regardless of income or actual expenditure. The HHS poverty llevel is a well-accepted, long-used poverty-level calculation that includes food, clothing, shelter, transportation, medical care, etc. See chart in Figure 1 below.

     

    Figure 1: 2004 FCA calculation
    Family
    size

    HHS annual poverty level

    FairTax annual
    consumption
    allowance
    (single person)
    Annual rebate (single person)

    Monthly rebate (single person)

    FairTax annual consumption allowance
    (married couple)

    Annual rebate (married couple)

    Monthly rebate (married couple)

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    $9,310

    $12,490

    $15,670

    $18,850

    $22,030

    $25,210

    $28,390

    $31,570

    $9,310

    $12,490

    $15,670

    $18,850

    $22,030

    $25,210

    $28,390

    $31,570

    $2,141

    $2,873

    $3,604

    $4,336

    $5,067

    $5,798

    $6,530

    $7,261

    $178

    $239

    $300

    $361

    $422

    $483

    $544

    $605

    N/A

    $18,620

    $21,800

    $24,980

    $28,160

    $31,340

    $34,520

    $37,700

    N/A

    $4,283

    $5,014

    $5,745

    $6,477

    $7,208

    $7,940

    $8,671

    N/A

    $357

    $418

    $479

    $540

    $601

    $662

    $723

    [ The monthly FCA for each adult is .23 * (HSS poverty level for a single person)/12 to assure no marriage penalty due to the manner in which the poverty level is dependant on family size. The monthly FCA for each child is .23 * (the incremental increase of HSS poverty level for a family with one child over no child) ] A. Geezer


    74 posted on 12/17/2004 12:13:04 PM PST by ancient_geezer (Don't reform it, Replace it!!)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

    To: JOHN W K

    "We need to study and get back to our founding father’s original tax plan!"

    Interesting proposal. What's the bill number?


    75 posted on 12/17/2004 12:15:47 PM PST by phil_will1
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

    To: kpp_kpp
    my issues is with the welfaristic, social-structure influence that the pre-bates give to the government. (a) i don't like the basis of them in the first place, (b) they open the door to manipulation.

    This is a common objection (from conservatives at least), but I don't get it. There are already tons of transfer payments and middle class entitlements used for social engineering; that door has been open for decades and the horses are long gone. The FairTax reduces the amount of manipulation by replacing many of those programs with a single check.

    76 posted on 12/17/2004 12:23:37 PM PST by ThinkDifferent (These pretzels are making me thirsty)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

    To: untrained skeptic

    "The problem is that drastically depreciates the value of current homes. That means for people like me, for whom their house is their largest investment, we take a HUGE hit."

    Not true. If you bought a house jus before the FairTax and paid $250K for it, and your friend bought one across the street after the FairTax was implemented, he woul pay about $250K after tax. EIther house would sell for about the same several years later, probably $250K + appreciation.


    77 posted on 12/17/2004 12:24:01 PM PST by phil_will1
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

    To: ancient_geezer

    the government is still defining "family".

    i'm not saying that is a horribly bad thing but if a system could be designed were no re/pre-bate is necessary then that gets the government out of the contentious family planning business.

    but you could argue that the government should be in the family planning business and should support higher birthrates so we don't wipe ourselves out like europe is doing.


    78 posted on 12/17/2004 12:25:52 PM PST by kpp_kpp
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

    To: untrained skeptic

    "Because of the major upheaval to our economy....."

    According to Dr. Dale Jorgenson, former chairman of Harvard's economics department, first year GDP growth would exceed 10%. If that is your idea of "economic upheaval", the we can use all we can get! LOL


    79 posted on 12/17/2004 12:28:02 PM PST by phil_will1
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

    To: ThinkDifferent

    if they succeed in the drastic step of going to something like the fairtax then why not go all the way to eliminating social engineering altogether at the same time.


    80 posted on 12/17/2004 12:28:17 PM PST by kpp_kpp
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

    To: NonValueAdded

    "And a NST is voluntary? Hardly. The fairest tax of all would be:
    budget / # residents = individual's tax bill."

    You call that VOLUNTARY? Where everyone gets assessed a fixed amount? You have to be joking.


    81 posted on 12/17/2004 12:29:30 PM PST by phil_will1
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

    To: snowsislander

    "That seems to ignore the fact that a large portion of our economy is based on imports; compared to a roughly $11 trillion GDP in 2003, our imports of goods were at around $1.2 trillion. Those goods' production costs are not dictated by our tax structure (although their final cost to us is subject to import duties.)"

    The trade deficit is due in no small measure to the bias that is incorporated into our tax system against domestic producers in favor of foreign producers. If we put them both on a level playing field and tax both identically, we will be amazed at how resilient our manufacturers and ag producers are.


    82 posted on 12/17/2004 12:35:30 PM PST by phil_will1
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

    To: Remember_Salamis; kpp_kpp
    Secondly, how much more money are they taking home each month?
    It depends, if pre-tax prices drop, none. If pre-tax prices stay the same, what was previously withheld.


    The FairTax will most likely have a provision that the NRST on a primary home can be paid over the life of the mortgage, similar to how property taxes are paid.
    Where is that in the bill?

    You are also forgetting: Sixthly, they will be paying taxes on a good portion of the interest reducing the amount they can pay toward the principle.
    83 posted on 12/17/2004 12:37:45 PM PST by Your Nightmare
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

    To: MarkL

    Mark, You are correct....If we DON'T stand on our representatives desks......we'll never see it. My representative pays it lip service, nothing more.

    The day the bill is reintroduced into the House, I plan to call, fax, and e-mail my representative. The day that it is reintroduced in the Senate, my Senators will likewise hear from me.

    They will hear from me, once a week, UNTIL THIS BECOMES THE LAW OF THE LAND.


    84 posted on 12/17/2004 12:41:24 PM PST by Conservative Goddess (Veritas vos Liberabit, in Vino, Veritas....QED, Vino vos Liberabit)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

    To: ancient_geezer

    >
    > The HHS poverty llevel is a well-accepted, long-used
    > poverty-level calculation that includes food, clothing,
    > shelter, transportation, medical care, etc
    >

    If this is supposed to be voluntary then:
    clothing: buy used
    shelter: buy used
    transportation: walk, buy used vehicals, bum rides
    medical care: use free clinics
    food: oops, you're taxed! (i know, grow you're own -- but i'm trying to be reasonable)

    (i'll drop my argument on housing). skip the tax on unprocessed foods and drop the prebate. it becomes truly voluntary and includes no social planning.

    show me a plan where you can lead a simple lifestyle and neither pay nor receive $ to/from the government and i'll support it.


    85 posted on 12/17/2004 12:43:19 PM PST by kpp_kpp
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

    To: kpp_kpp
    This whole "voluntary tax" is BS, isn't it? I don't get how people see not buying the things I want, just so I don't have to pay the government, is freedom. The government is making me buy used crap I don't want and I'm free?

    These people have a skewed sense of freedom.
    86 posted on 12/17/2004 12:48:47 PM PST by Your Nightmare
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

    To: kpp_kpp
    If this is supposed to be voluntary then:

    clothing: buy used

    shelter: buy used

    transportation: walk, buy used vehicals, bum rides

    I thought about this. Actually it was the only flaw I could find in NRST. Well as my daughter pointed out. Some of the people can buy used some of the time but all of the people can't buy used all of the time. We'll run out.

    87 posted on 12/17/2004 12:49:26 PM PST by groanup (RATs are afraid of the light so spread a little sunshine.)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

    To: kpp_kpp

    show me a plan where you can lead a simple lifestyle and neither pay nor receive $ to/from the government and i'll support it.

    So many Americans paying little or no federal taxes makes for a natural spending constituency. It's like me in the restaurant: What do I care about extravagance if you're footing the bill?
    --Walter Williams

    Go buy a pacific island, and roll your own.

    To remove perception of the tax burdens of the individual, is to remove the goad which assures accountability of government to the electorate. Federal tax rates are high and government grows ever larger because a majority of the electorate do not perceive proportionately the burden their demand for largesse imposes on the minority of citizens.

    The siren call for representation without taxation is the formula that got us where we are at today. The ability to hide or disguise taxation from the view of large sectors of the electorate allows the Congress to get away with the creation of the evergrowing monster that it fosters.

    Liberty and freedom have a price, responsibility. If that the perception of that price is avoided there are no brakes on the growth of government, the ultimate result is the end of freedom through rampant socialism.

    88 posted on 12/17/2004 12:52:59 PM PST by ancient_geezer (Don't reform it, Replace it!!)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

    To: Your Nightmare
    The government is making me buy used crap I don't want and I'm free?

    What BS.

    89 posted on 12/17/2004 12:53:18 PM PST by EternalVigilance
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

    To: phil_will1

    "Not true. If you bought a house jus before the FairTax and paid $250K for it, and your friend bought one across the street after the FairTax was implemented, he woul pay about $250K after tax. EIther house would sell for about the same several years later, probably $250K + appreciation."

    You're missing the point.

    If I buy a house today for $250,000. And someone buys an Identical house after the fair tax he will pay $250,000 including the tax.

    Then I have to move, so I sell my house. I receive $250,000 minus the federal tax for a net amount of $192,500 and not only lose all my equity, I can't even pay off my mortgage.

    Or will the federal government only tax new construction, and real estate won't be taxed again when sold after the first time?


    90 posted on 12/17/2004 12:53:24 PM PST by untrained skeptic
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

    To: ancient_geezer

    my only point was that if basic food products were untaxed the poor would not have to be compensated and you would not need to set up this whole welfare-like social engineering prebate structure that down the road will be manipulated buy congress.


    91 posted on 12/17/2004 12:57:22 PM PST by kpp_kpp
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

    To: phil_will1

    The major upheval comes from switching from one tax system to the other.

    The fair tax will eventually make items cost less to make, and the prices for items will go down. However, companies with inventory get screwed. They paid higher prices to purchase or make those items, and they're suddenly worth considerably less.

    Let's go back to real estate. A developer invest many millions of dollars into building a housing development. The fair tax goes into effect and the houses can now be built for 20+ percent less. The developer doesn't even make 20% on the deal if things would have went right to begin with, so they go bankrupt.


    92 posted on 12/17/2004 12:58:09 PM PST by untrained skeptic
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

    To: untrained skeptic

    Or will the federal government only tax new construction, and real estate won't be taxed again when sold after the first time?

    Tax once but only once is the explicit rule in the legislation.

    Used = Tax already paid or property grandfathered as already held for otherthan business purpose, by explicit definition of the term used property in the bill.

    Read it. It is enlightening, then ask the questions.

    mash yer clicker here ==> H.R.25, S.1493

    A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.

    For additional information: http://www.fairtax.org, http://www.salestax.org & http://www.geocities.com/cmcofer/ftax.html


    93 posted on 12/17/2004 12:59:20 PM PST by ancient_geezer (Don't reform it, Replace it!!)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

    To: untrained skeptic

    Let's go back to real estate. A developer invest many millions of dollars into building a housing development. The fair tax goes into effect and the houses can now be built for 20+ percent less. The developer doesn't even make 20% on the deal if things would have went right to begin with, so they go bankrupt.

    Wrong transition business credit covering the embedded income/payroll taxes in that inventory is provided to the business on sale of the property to cover that condition.

    Again, Read it. It is enlightening, then ask the questions.

    mash yer clicker here ==> H.R.25, S.1493

    A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.

    For additional information: http://www.fairtax.org, http://www.salestax.org & http://www.geocities.com/cmcofer/ftax.html


    94 posted on 12/17/2004 1:02:50 PM PST by ancient_geezer (Don't reform it, Replace it!!)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

    To: untrained skeptic

    However, companies with inventory get screwed. They paid higher prices to purchase or make those items, and they're suddenly worth considerably less.

     

    H.R.25

    Fair Tax Act of 2003 (Introduced in House)
    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.25:


     

    `SEC. 902. TRANSITION MATTERS.

    `(a) Inventory-

    `(1) QUALIFIED INVENTORY- Inventory held by a trade or business on the close of business on December 31, 2004, shall be qualified inventory if it is sold--

    `(A) before December 31, 2006;

    `(B) by a registered person; and

    `(C) subject to the tax imposed by section 101.

    `(2) COSTS- For purposes of this section, qualified inventory shall have the cost that it had for Federal income tax purposes for the trade or business as of December 31, 2004 (including any amounts capitalized by reason of section 263A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as in effect on December 31, 2004).

    `(3) TRANSITIONAL INVENTORY CREDIT- The trade or business which held the qualified inventory on the close of business on December 31, 2004, shall be entitled to a transitional inventory credit equal to the cost of the qualified inventory (determined in accordance with paragraph (2)) times the rate of tax imposed by section 101.

    `(4) TIMING OF CREDIT- The credit provided under paragraph (3) shall be allowed with respect to the month when the inventory is sold subject to the tax imposed by this subtitle. Said credit shall be reported as an intermediate and export sales credit and the person claiming said credit shall attach supporting schedules in the form that the Secretary may prescribe.

    `(b) WORK-IN-PROCESS- For purposes of this section, inventory shall include work-in-process.

    `(c) Qualified Inventory Held by Businesses Not Selling Said Qualified Inventory at Retail-

    `(1) IN GENERAL- Qualified inventory held by businesses that sells said qualified inventory not subject to tax pursuant to section 102(a) shall be eligible for the transitional inventory credit only if that business (or a business that has successor rights pursuant to paragraph (2)) receives certification in a form satisfactory to the Secretary that the qualified inventory was subsequently sold subject to the tax imposed by this subtitle.

    `(2) TRANSITIONAL INVENTORY CREDIT RIGHT MAY BE SOLD- The business entitled to the transitional inventory credit may sell the right to receive said transitional inventory credit to the purchaser of the qualified inventory that gave rise to the credit entitlement. Any purchaser of such qualified inventory (or property or services into which the qualified inventory has been incorporated) may sell the right to said transitional inventory credit to a subsequent purchaser of said qualified inventory (or property or services into which the qualified inventory has been incorporated).

     

    Read it all, its enlightening, and you won't have to make wild 'ss guesses.

    95 posted on 12/17/2004 1:08:44 PM PST by ancient_geezer (Don't reform it, Replace it!!)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

    To: ancient_geezer; untrained skeptic
    Wrong transition business credit covering the embedded income/payroll taxes in that inventory is provided to the business on sale of the property to cover that condition.
    And whose going to pay for the credit? We are. This credit is not accounted for in their "revenue neutral" rate. We are talking several hundred billion dollars. The 23% (actually 29.87%) rate is not realistic and is the result of a lot of accounting gimmickry. It just a marketing tool to get the suckers on board, and it's worked well on FR.
    96 posted on 12/17/2004 1:09:25 PM PST by Your Nightmare
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

    To: kpp_kpp

    my only point was that if basic food products were untaxed the poor would not have to be compensated

    What's a basic food product, who make that determination for you? Open the door for one exception, the door is open for anything Congress Critters and their favorite special interests can dream up.

    Why should anyone be telling you what basic food is and isn't so they can give it favored status by not taxing it?

    Better to have no exception or pre-bates or refunding to anyone at all than to go that route.

    Exception and favored status is the route of social engineering you claim you want to avoid.

    97 posted on 12/17/2004 1:14:44 PM PST by ancient_geezer (Don't reform it, Replace it!!)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

    To: Your Nightmare

    >
    > The 23% (actually 29.87%) rate is not realistic and is the
    > result of a lot of accounting gimmickry. It just a marketing
    > tool to get the suckers on board, and it's worked well
    > on FR.
    >

    i'll buy that.


    98 posted on 12/17/2004 1:16:05 PM PST by kpp_kpp
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

    To: ancient_geezer

    it is something all states that have a sales tax but not on most foods already deal with. let each state follow its own model and it stays out of the hands of congress.

    i would even be happy making it more strict than current state standards and just leave unprocessed foods untaxed (flour, sugar, vegetables, water, milk, etc.).


    99 posted on 12/17/2004 1:19:07 PM PST by kpp_kpp
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

    To: Your Nightmare

    "The government is making me buy used crap I don't want and I'm free?"

    There you go again, YN, getting hysterical. The governemnt isn't making you do anything under the FairTax. Up to the poverty level, you are untaxed. If you choose to consume above that level, you will pay taxes.

    That's pretty simple.


    100 posted on 12/17/2004 1:20:53 PM PST by phil_will1
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]


    Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
    first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-319 next 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
    News/Activism
    Topics · Post Article

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