Posted on 09/02/2007 6:42:46 AM PDT by Man50D
You still haven’t read the FT book have you?
You obviously bought that "sop" hook line and sinker.
"You should take the time to read the book before you show your ignorance."
Oh, I did. Unlike you, I just don't believe everything they claim.
Use your brain. Think! Prices remain the same. Take home pay remains the same. The poor are no worse off than they were before. That $2 loaf of bread is still $2, right? The Fair Tax simply made the hidden taxes visible, right?
So why do the poor need $500 per month? To offset ... what?
Explain that before you start throwing around the term "ignorant".
thought so...
In 1998, Merrill Lynch estimated that world wide, 5 trillion dollars was stashed in off shore accounts and that amount represent nearly a third of the wealthy's savings.
However, that's not the point.
The point is that a 30% consumption tax will be distortionary. It will change people's behavior. The effects will be good for some and bad for others (not just tax attorneys). The wealthy will find ways to consume that avoids the tax, just as they find ways now to avoid the income tax, corporate taxes, or whatever.
Ah, the golden age
Without the assorted taxes on capital and income, investment will flow in volumes unimaginable even in the 19th century.
It was also the age of recessions, depressions, gave rise to the labor movement, and ultimately - the income tax.
If the Fair Tax is so simple, why do the Fair Taxers keep insisting we "read the book" or "read the legislation" rather than just answering the question? Or, "the answer can be found in FAQ# 9,682".
Steve Forbes never told me to read a book. He told me to subtract $36,000 from my gross income and multiply by .17.
“Suckers born every minute Tax”
I can’t guarantee that federal spending won’t get out of control with the fairtax. Huckabee’s literature states that when he ended his term as Arkansas’ governor, the state had a surplus of more than $800 million.
Huckabee’s website states that he was against the immigration bill that the U.S. Senate debated this year because it would have given amnesty. Huckabee says that he wants ICE employees to deport as many illegal as possible, as quickly as possible.
Oh, so you're ok with a tax as long as it starts out simple. What if it grows into a 60,000 page monster? Do you think it should be abolished? If so why would you want to start all over with one of those monsters?
It could be as complex as you want as long as it's small. As I said in my post #52, cut spending, repeal the 16th, and go back to tariffs and excise taxes.
IF we're going to make a change, then I'd prefer the least disruptive and least controversial -- a flat tax. Either a flat tax that everyone pays or a flat tax with some deduction. If the latter, then those who are exempt from paying taxes also are exempt from voting. I'm not going to have non-tax-payers voting to increase my taxes.
If I were King.
It is exactly what would happen with any form of tax replacement. Human nature is human nature, and politicians will always be politicians.
Correct. Which brings us back to one of the fundamental differences between the FairTax and the flat tax. The flat tax can be hidden by withholding. The FairTax is money out of your pocket - very well telegraphed - what, five times a day for most people?
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
They can increase the prebate 20% (in an election year, of course) without increasing the Fair Tax rate by simply declaring that the new poverty level is now 20% higher. Before you know it, poverty will be defined as income of $100,000 or less.
The proposed prebate is nothing more than a vote getter. As I demonstrated, it's not necessary to "offset" taxes for the poor. If they use it that way once, they'll use it that way again.
Feel free to name it anything you want. I'm thinking "Grow the tax base by almost double and more than double the number of payers to reduce the tax burden of legal participants in the income tax system".
Of course, those who currently do not legally participate in today's tax system will see an increase.
Hard to repeal something that wasn't adopted. The trick would be to reverse the truckload of caselaw that de facto if not de jure makes the income tax as good as anything.
Yes, they could - and I'd like that! But why would they?
If they increase the rebate everyone gets a tax cut...and so would everyone else!
...it's not necessary to "offset" taxes for the poor.
I agree - and the income tax does it, but the nrst doesn't. The nrst exempts ALL spending below poverty level for everyone rich and poor alike. Income is not related to the rebate on necessity spending.
Hah! Everyone who buys something today pays hidden taxes equal to the Fair Tax -- the Fair Tax simply makes them visible, remember?
Double the number of payers? Halve the number of payers, perhaps, as people switch over to used goods or cheat the system.
UH oh PR - you're off the reservation. Your handlers didn't tell you that business taxes per se plus compliance come to 9% of prices? THey're the ones who insist on it - I drove them to it.
Now you will have to decide RP. Do you believe the 9% or the 23%? I predict you will refuse to answer.
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.