Posted on 06/15/2009 8:19:49 AM PDT by Man50D
23% **was** about 10 years ago... your argument is about as invalid and lame as it gets nowadays...
... and who won'r ever buy, mustard, salt, pepper, sugar, coffee, tea, toilet paper, weave their own cloth, make their own clothes, including shoes, socks and stockings, dishes and eating utenils, pots, pans, and glassware, radio and TV sets?
Admittedly, some of those items could be bought used, but I venture to say that even those self-sufficient souls would draw the line at making use of used salt, pepper, sugar, coffee, toilet paper, and many other necessities of life.
Flat tax doesn’t capture tax from illegals or tax scammers.
Income tax only taxes those of us who legally file.
I agree with others, I can control my consumption and lower my taxes at will. Although that may have the adverse effect of ruining the economy.
At this point I favor Fair Tax over Flat Tax ... But I favor either of those plans over the current confiscation of our freedom and wealth.
And if you think a bill has EVER been passed in both houses without amendments and pork stuffed throughout then you are living in an alternate universe.
Amen, Bigun.
Most of them don’t even realize they’re assuring the preservation of the status quo.
Never argue with idiots - they drag you down to their level, and then beat you with experience.
What IRS? Nathan, why doin't you read the Fair Tax Bill?
Again, the rate has nothing to do with whether we should implement the FairTax.
Since the FairTax is by design revenue neutral, or in other words by law must be implemented to bring in pretty much the same amount of revenue as the existing system, the rate exposes the level of current government spending, nothing else. The current system successfully masks that reality.
Because “IT” has never happened in the history of this country.
New name... “The Ultimate Denial Tax”
See post 69.
For once you’re right. He is, of course, as wrong as you are about the FairTax — but what he said he said well. His grammar is much better than what you usually use.
You are comparing the Fairtax to the income tax. I am comparing the Fairtax to tariffs. It’s really very simple.
Oh boo hoo. Is that the best you can do, insult those who don't agree with you because you ignore the reality of how and where the government collects revenues, that a 'fair tax' on retail goods sales just won't generate the tax renenues needed? that it ignores state taxes, etc etc. etc?
Yes, I'd rather have status quo than have my taxes go up because a fairtaxer fan goes "oops! I never thought of that... "
You are ferocious in your defense of the status-quo.
Good job! I can think of so many who are very proud of you.
Exactly what the hell has that got to do with this discussion?
How is it different than the current situation regarding state taxes?
What are you talking about? Taxes on consumption were the rule before the imposition of the Sixteenth Amendment, and Hamililton made the facts of the matter clear at the nation's founding. Against direct taxes.
Federalist 21
The wealth of nations depends upon an infinite variety of causes. Situation, soil, climate, the nature of the productions, the nature of the government, the genius of the citizens, the degree of information they possess, the state of commerce, of arts, of industry, these circumstances and many more, too complex, minute, or adventitious to admit of a particular specification, occasion differences hardly conceivable in the relative opulence and riches of different countries. The consequence clearly is that there can be no common measure of national wealth, and, of course, no general or stationary rule by which the ability of a state to pay taxes can be determined. The attempt, therefore, to regulate the contributions of the members of a confederacy by any such rule, cannot fail to be productive of glaring inequality and extreme oppression.
This inequality would of itself be sufficient in America to work the eventual destruction of the Union, if any mode of enforcing a compliance with its requisitions could be devised. The suffering States would not long consent to remain associated upon a principle which distributes the public burdens with so unequal a hand, and which was calculated to impoverish and oppress the citizens of some States, while those of others would scarcely be conscious of the small proportion of the weight they were required to sustain. This, however, is an evil inseparable from the principle of quotas and requisitions.
There is no method of steering clear of this inconvenience, but by authorizing the national government to raise its own revenues in its own way. Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. If inequalities should arise in some States from duties on particular objects, these will, in all probability, be counterbalanced by proportional inequalities in other States, from the duties on other objects. In the course of time and things, an equilibrium, as far as it is attainable in so complicated a subject, will be established everywhere. Or, if inequalities should still exist, they would neither be so great in their degree, so uniform in their operation, nor so odious in their appearance, as those which would necessarily spring from quotas, upon any scale that can possibly be devised.
It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four .'' If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.
I have news for you, your taxes are going up under our income tax system.
That pretty much sums up this discussion.
You may not be confused -- but you are totally ignorant of wht the FairTax is all about. And seemingly, bound and determined to stay that way.
You really should at least try to find out something abvout what you are trying to discuss. That way you wouldn't come across like a bullheaded ___________(fill in the blank).
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.