Posted on 02/25/2008 12:51:24 PM PST by Man50D
SUPPOSE A presidential candidate proposed taxing wealth and using the proceeds to reduce taxes on workers and provide a rebate large enough to cover taxes paid by poor workers. Such a candidate would be hailed by the left and reviled by the right.
Thus, it's remarkable that so many Democrats, with the exception of presidential candidate Mike Gravel, oppose the FairTax and so many Republicans, particularly presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, support it. In fact, the FairTax, which replaces all federal taxes with a federal retail sales tax and provides a rebate, represents a way to tax wealth, reduce taxes on wages, and disproportionately redistribute money to the poor.
A sales tax effectively taxes wealth?
It does. When we buy goods and services in a sales tax world, part of the payment goes to sales taxes. So we end up with fewer real goods and services.
Take Mr. Megabucks, who is sitting on $65 million and wants to buy a jet like Oprah Winfrey's - a 10-passenger, $50 million Global Express XRS. Under the FairTax, the jet costs him an extra $15 million because of the 30 percent sales tax. Mr. Megabucks gets the jet, but the extra $15 million, which he had budgeted for Beluga caviar, Dom Pérignon, and other flight snacks, goes to Uncle Sam.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Well, apparently xcamel would take his 200 million dollar baby to Bumluck, Zambodia before you can say "income tax lawyer".
I don't speak New York. What the hell does that mean?
Based on the 80/20 rule, that would be approx $200 per individual taxpayer and $800 per business. Big deal.
Just when you had everyone duped into thinking just what a “smart feller” you were, too.
So sad.
It makes about as much sense as 90% of what you post anyway.
You are currently paying, an average 22 cents out of every dollar you spend to reimburse businesses for their tax compliance costs. Under the FairTax you will pay 23 cents out of every dollar you spend for new goods and services; but, you will not be paying hidden taxes as you are under the income tax system; your income has nothing to do with how much you spend because you keep 100% of your income and pay the tax as you make purchases. You will no longer be paying payroll taxes - they will be paid from the FairTax’s 23 cents out of every dollar you spend.There is absolutely no logic or discernible math in that paragraph.
When Bill Archer was chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, he routinely quoted an informal survey of five hundred international companies located in Europe and Japan.Maybe you would like to explain the process of informally surveying 500 international companies. This "survey" is bull crap.
23%.Nope. 30% sales tax
Bill Archer 3rd para. from the bottom.Name just one of those companies he refers too...just one.
What other aspects of this document do you agree with? I have highlighted your preferences according to your posting history.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
That effect is so obvious it’s painful. Who wouldn’t relocate to America if it became the most amped up tax haven in history?Right because really wise business people always overlook government regulations and wages.
Then it might be helpful if you posted it in a language that adults can understand.
Sure! It seems pretty elementary to me but for you I will do it. They were asked the question, "What would you do in your long-term planning if the United States eliminated all taxes on capital and labor and taxed only personal consumption?", and eighty percent - that's four hundred out of five hundred - said that they would build their next plant in America. The remaining 20 percent - the other hundred companies - said that they would relocate their business to America altogether.
This "survey" is bull crap.
You can call it whatever you like but the fact remains that Chairman Archer referred to it often and I doubt seriously that he was not telling the truth.
This is a new tactic for you. Have you been reading "Debating for Dummies"?
Did they have a positive effect on the economy?
The Tax Foundation says that for 2007 the number is $305.30 Billion.The Tax Foundations numbers are based on the flawed Arthur D. Little study from the 1980s! Their results are laughable. Hell, they estimate it takes the average person 3.8 hours to fill out a 1040EZ! That's a joke. I did my 1040A in half that time.
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.