Posted on 01/09/2005 6:59:57 PM PST by ancient_geezer
I didn't ask what your motivations weren't. I asked what they are. Are you still unwilling to disclose?They certainly aren't financal. I've spent my own money purchasing research material. My motivation is that I think the FairTax would be a horrible disaster for this country. There are better methods for tax reform.
You simply aren't believable. If that's all you're saying is you motivation, it's preposterous. Is that all you're willing to say?
Somehow, somewhere you got the notion that you and you alone have the authority to determine what is "on the table" and what is "off the table".Wasn't it AG who said we shouldn't question motivations. I believe he said "If it does not reflect on the contents of his message then it has no bearing whatsoever." So it was AG determining what was "off the table."
Dear Principled,
"You simply aren't believable."
Why?
sitetest
"My motivation is that I think the FairTax would be a horrible disaster for this country. There are better methods for tax reform."
Yeah, right. Like a flat tax or VAT proposal which hasn't even been developed yet? You expect us to believe that you have picked apart the FairTax and expressed skepticism at every aspect of the most thoroughly researched alternative out there and have decided that you prefer a plan where nothing has been documented, not the rate, not which deductions would be eliminated, not the impact on various sectors of the economy, nothing.
I may have been born at night, but it wasn't last night.
You simply aren't believable. If that's all you're saying is you motivation, it's preposterous. Is that all you're willing to say?That and I think the FairTax is being promoted with a bunch of half-truths and out-right lies. And that bugs me.
"You simply aren't believable."
"Why?"
See post #245
Dear phil_will1,
Post #245, by itself, answers nothing.
Why isn't Your Nightmare believable when he says what his motivations are?
sitetest
Yeah, right. Like a flat tax or VAT proposal which hasn't even been developed yet?Irrelevant. The slate is clean.
You expect us to believe that you have picked apart the FairTax and expressed skepticism at every aspect of the most thoroughly researched alternative out thereI'm trying to think of one research paper I've read that studied the FairTax, but I can't think of any. (I may have read one, but forgot.) They've all studied generic NRSTs. And most of them also included a generic flat tax (they don't include a VAT because economist believe that a VAT and a NRST are economically equal, the only difference is in enforcement). Can you point me to a study of the FairTax?
have decided that you prefer a plan where nothing has been documented, not the rate, not which deductions would be eliminated, not the impact on various sectors of the economy, nothing.Again, irrelevant at this stage in the process.
Why isn't Your Nightmare believable when he says what his motivations are?Because I disagree with their plan and present reasoned, researched arguments for why. So they must marginalize me.
I don't understand it, but I accept it. Now. Let's all simma down now.
I don't think you have to study something that is common sense. Do you have a study that shows it doesn't?
Like I said. I missed it, could you please post it again.
I'm pretty sure you claimed the AFFT study used 5 levels. Can't you use your "simple example" to show what happens the next 2 levels?
If I posted it here, it would take a huge page and because of formatting would be hard to follow.
Oh OK. How about you simply show the calculations you use to accumulate and increase the ratios to make the graph/chart/spreadsheet...if 100% is too much for your little mind just go to 20%, after all that is the amount you claim prices would be reduced.
"If you were to go thousands of levels deep into the supply chain, you would reach a point where accumulated taxes account for well over 99% of the price you would be paying."
Gee, you got to 11% in only 3 levels but then you say it takes "thousands of levels deep into the supply chain" to get to 99%....Where's all that cumalitve and ever increasing ratios taking place?...the first 2 levels?
Where does AFFT find you clowns?
I don't think you have to study something that is common sense. Do you have a study that shows it doesn't?I can't prove a negative. Don't you think if the income tax cascaded through the production chain this way some economist somewhere might have studied it? The fact is most (every?) economist doesn't agree with phil_will1's theory.
go to www.fairtax.org get informed, volunteer, spread the word --send information to everyone on your e-mail list...get educated! write you reps, write yourlocal papers.... get on ancient_geezer's tax ping list if you are not already on it
How do you know they don't agree if there aren't any studies?
UP to your usual hateful self this morning, I see.
Like Amazon.com?
Even if he doesn't pay income taxes he is still paying payroll taxes, compliance costs and the embedded taxes and compliance costs of his suppliers.
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.