Posted on 12/26/2007 8:42:38 AM PST by Turret Gunner A20
There is no need to go into all your tax contortions. You can call it 23% -- that's fine. Just don't call it a sales tax, that's all.
In the example given in the article, it amounts to the same thing. Poor people, through their employers, would have to report their income to the federal government every month. Even if they're not "employed", a 1099 is sent to the federal government saying how much they were paid.
"Maybe you should follow the advice of the first 11 words of post # 6."
#6 went away. Were you naughty?
All articles and editorials from Wall Street Journal must be excerpted and linked.
Your post has been removed.
Knock off the personal attacks.
No, no. Buy his next book. THAT one has the truth in it. Promise.
Order it today!
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Well maybe if you had a different handle,
you would not get the personal attacks.
Sorry, I forgot that you are “always right”
So personal attacks are OK if you don’t like someone’s screen name? Sorry if my screen name offends you.
Have you told that to those who attack me?
Thank you.
Then don't post articles with false information then personally attack people when they point it out. Thank you.
No it isn't! Chapter 9 is about some construct of their own making! Cetianly NOT the Fairtax bill as it currently exsists!
So again, what is Neal talking about?
Exactly that! They REFUSEd to look at the FairTax bill and insted chose to look at something of their own construction that hardly resembles the Fairtax AT ALL!
Unless the 16th Amendment is repealed first, the FairTax is D*E*A*D.
No one is going to vote in a national sales tax on top of an income tax. No one, that is, except those who want more government.
The Presidential panel did consider the Fairtax bill exactly as advocated, but did not believe many of the underlying assumptions from the fairtax.org, so they tried to work it into something that might be worth considering. The panel had many issues with the fairtax numbers, which is easily understandable since I have many of the same issues. To say the panel did not consider the fairtax is not true.
Yep! That is EXACTLY what they did! The , like you, simply chose not to believe the data that was put before them, for POLITICAL reasons I might add, and created their own "bill" upon which they reported.
They DID NOT report on the FairTax, as it exsists, AT ALL!
My theatans are a twitter with excitement...
(/s)
And I will not support it until it has some provision for a one-time lump-sum payment to Roth IRA holders on past contributions to ensure they don’t get screwed over with double taxation. I’ve heard the arguments that we’re paying an embedded tax anyway. But that’s BS. If I have a $200,000 Roth IRA, I’ve paid in about 40-50k in Taxes with the expectation not to be taxed on that $ when it comes out. If I had the money in a Traditional IRA or 401k, then I would NOT have paid in the tax.
same old same old...
(**NTSA**)
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.