Posted on 08/12/2006 5:59:58 AM PDT by Man50D
It is you who wants everyone "to be evened out", socialist boy.
Rob doesn't like the nrst becuase a mailing list of supporters may not be as accurate as he'd like.
LOL
When are you going back to blaming paid entertainers for tax reforms you don't like?
NO its not!
The working poor may not pay income tax,But they pay S.S. and F.I.C.A. and that can be a killer when you are trying to pay bills. Especially when they are self employed which they pay twice as much.
The fair tax would be the greatest thing for the working poor in this country. When they get paid they get all of their check,ALL of it plus the prebate.
I think your problem is you seem to have a problem with successful people,that or you make allot of money and feel guilty about being successful.
I wonder..... who knows these things?
And they'll start by giving you the &,#8230. Don't ask them about when they'll start on the rest. They're still trying to bamboozle you into thinking that a 23% tax is a good idea.
If you want CBO numbers, I can give them.
at $10,000 per year, you have no business buying a boatYou must be the one who determines what everyone's necessities are and how much they should cost.
It does absolutely nothing to address the root cause of the tax problem, which is how much money the government spends. Until that is addressed, all this talk of changing the tax code is just mental masturbation.
Monthly.
It does absolutely nothing to address the root cause of the tax problem, which is how much money the government spends.
I believe that comes under appropriations bills does it not?
The FairTax legislation happens to be a revenue bill not a spending bill.
As far as addressing root causes, seems to me assuring more voters actually participating in the payment of taxes would go a long way towards addressing the root cause as to why government continues to spend more each year.
It is certain under the current federal income tax system or any income tax system in which a large proportion of the electorate are exempted from even participating we will continue to spend even more.
- "There has been a shift in the relationship between individuals and government, he argues, such that fewer and fewer are paying taxes at the same time that more and more are receiving increasingly generous benefits. If it becomes the case that most voters do not bear a financial burden for this largess, then there will be little to restrain--and significant political incentives to encourage--the continued growth of government. "
Bush touts relief as tax day looms
- Another 3.9 million Americans will have their income tax liability completely eliminated, officials said.
That's 3.9 million Americans more added to the spending constituency of 70% of the public clamoring for more from government, figuring someone else foots the bill.
In that Walter Williams has the root problem nailed:
"It's like me in the restaurant: What do I care about extravagance if you're footing the bill?"
The Intent of the individual income tax is for political and social control not revenue collection. The Individual Income tax is maintained to establish and hold every person in the country perpetual legal jeopardy. That is a situation that must end with the repeal of the income tax from the statutes, and the prohibition of its use by Constitutional amendment that future generations will not face the same manner of manipulation and interference in their lives.
If we expect to see control of government spending, we had best look to make the burden visible to the whole of the electorate, not just the few designated as the token guy behind the tree.
That my friend is one of the bottomline purposes of going to the NRST, make the cost of largess perceptible to the entire electorate, even the lowest most rungs of the economic ladder.
The monthly NRST entitlement spending would dwarf Social Security.
I don't know about you, but under the nrst I'd pay less tax and have more purchasing power. All legal particpants in today's income/payroll tax system will.And non-retail and non-service businesses would pay no tax.
And every address would get a government check based solely on family size, like a welfare check...every month (but it's not an entitlement).
And the government would get the same amount of revenue it does now.
It would be nirvana!
BUMP!
The prebate is set only by family size, which may or may not correlate with poverty level or net worth or any other such factor, so I consider it more appropriate to consider it in the "reimbursement" rather than "entitlement" category.
Just because an entitlement is defined as "An individual's right to receive a value or benefit provided by law" doesn't mean the right to recieve a monthly NRST benefit payment from the federal government is an entitlement because, er, uh... Shut up, that's why!
They're being reimbursed for family size? Same as food stamps!
The monthly NRST entitlement spending would dwarf Social Security.
Interesting I don't find entitlement spending in the the legislation. All I find is a sales tax rebate to assure only expenditures above the povertylevel are taxed and that any tax laid on purchases below povertylevel be returned to those paying the such taxes on their purchases.
But then I guess there are those that look for govenment to burden even that which is necessary to the unalienable right to Life, unlike the founders of this great nation.
"The simplest system of taxation yet adopted is that of levying on the land and the laborer. But it would be better to levy the same sums on the produce of that labor when collected in the barn of the farmer; because then if through the badness of the year he made little, he would pay little. It would be better yet to levy it only on the surplus of this produce above his own wants. It would be better, too, to levy it, not in his hands, but in those of the purchaser; because though the farmer would in fact pay it, as the purchaser must deduct it from the original price of his produce yet the farmer would not be sensible that he paid it... What a comfort to the farmer to be allowed to supply his own wants before he should be liable to pay anything, and then to pay only out of his surplus."
--- Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1784. Papers 7:558
"The government which steps out of the ranks of the ordinary articles of consumption to select and lay under disproportionate burdens a particular one because it is a comfort, pleasing to the taste or necessary to the health and will therefore be bought, is in that particular a tyranny. Taxes on consumption like those on capital or income, to be just, must be uniform."
Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Smith, 1823. ME 15:432
[Montesquieu wrote in Spirit of the Laws, XIII,c.14:]
- "A capitation is more natural to slavery; a duty on merchandise is more natural to liberty, by reason it has not so direct a relation to the person."
--Thomas Jefferson: copied into his Commonplace Book.
Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention June 12, 1788:
- "the oppression arising from taxation, is not from the amount but, from the mode -- a thorough acquaintance with the condition of the people, is necessary to a just distribution of taxes.
The tax code is not about money. It is the primary source of unconstitutional power for the government. It gives them unprecedented power to control us by rewarding and punishing behavior.
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.