Posted on 04/18/2006 10:26:47 AM PDT by Eaglewatcher
Citizens have to be able to vote, so dependent minors obviously don't have to pay; but yes each citizen would pay around $10,000-- without a wake up call like this, those dependent on Big Gov will never get off the teat and will never DEMAND that government reduce taxes. As long as the "rich" folks foot the bill, they will just keep asking for more services. Same is true here in PA for property taxes BTW; all the polls are jumping through hoops trying to make it so only homes valued over 100,000 pay at all... soak the rich, soak the rich... Who is John Galt?
In fact, Filo, if the FairTax were passed today, the revenue neutral rate sould be something like 19% due to the Bush tax cuts that are in effect.
As for state sales taxes, the most likely thing there is for most states to choose to conform to the FairTax which would lower the state sales tax rate to about 1/3 the rate presently in most states. There's a good discussion of this on the FairTax website. For example if your state had a 6.5% typical sales tax now and chose to conform to the FairTax, the tax base would be broader and the rate drop to perhaps 2 or 2.5 percent.
As the FairTax progreses from year to year, the rate would probably drop as the rate is very visible which allows political pressure o be brought to bear and with the improving ecomony from the FairTax effects the rate could be lower for a given amount of tax revenue.
If anyone would like to be added to this ping list let me know.
John Linder in the House(HR25) & Saxby Chambliss Senate(S25) offer a comprehensive bill to kill all income and SS/Medicare payroll taxes outright and replace them with with a national retail sales tax administered by the states.
H.R.25,S.25
A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.Refer for additional information:
I could get behind that.....
Why a sunset provision? Why not right away?
According to my fiscal hero, Jack Kemp, the phased in aspect of Reagan's tax cuts initially thwarted the supply side benifits of the cuts because the entreprenuerial taxpayers who drive the economy sensibly held off on elective transactions until the full cut was in effect. They figured, why recognize income now when we know income tax rates will be lowest three years from now? This good business sense is thought to have contributed to a temporary economic slowdown.
I realize we are not talking about a tax cut, per se. Yet, replacing the federal income tax with a reasonable consumption tax should have a profound supply side effect - and should be tantamount to a rate cut. If so, it should be immediate, not scheduled for a future year.
Stop and think. There are plenty of reasons why people would buy new and not used - just as at present when we have used things that are cheaper than new. Some think that cars or houses have almost limitless economic lives and some think just the opposite.
there are even those right now who buy new cars every year or two (and new houses too for that matter). Some like "new" better because it's new and because they can affort to buy "new".
It's called "freedom of choice" and it's even more pronounded under the FairTax since your money isn't taxed "up-front" but only when you decide to spend it for taxable items. You decide whereas presently you're tax whether you buy new OR used.
The amount of tax is the same no watter if it's expressed as an inclusive or exclusive tax amount. The anti-FairTax crowd (of which Rightie is a rock-solid member) likes to use only the higher tax exclusive number to fool people into thinking that somehow using the tax inclusive amount is dishonest or somehow represents a lower amount that the tax actually might be.
Either number is correct so long as it is expressed properly but talking about one to the exclusion of the other is certainly meaningless. The FairTax uses tax inclusive in the bill since it allows one to compare tax rates on the same basis as the income tax (which is also tax inclusive - meaning that a 23% FairTax rate is the same as a 23% income tax rate) and in addition the receipt required to be given the buyer also specifies use of the tax inclusive rate to show the amount of tax paid on a particular purchase.
The FairTax website explains the tax both ways to point out that the aamount of tax involved is the same.
There is no "deception" except by posters such as Rightie who is emotionally attached to the income tax and can conceive of nothing else in his lifetime.
Nothing - because it won't go up 30% roggie as ou've been shown before but choose not to believe.
And an item can be priced either tax inclusive of tax exclusive. You seem unaware that there are some places that price things presently as tax inclusive. It hardly matters since the price one pays is the same no matter the advertising philosophy behind showing one price or another.
Do you think perhaps that people are not atute enough to realize the "price" of something always ends up being how much they part with bo buy it? They pay no less for the thing whether it's "priced" (which is merely an advertising convention) one way or the other.
Yeah (more or less - but not completely true since not everything is taxed) - ALTHOUGH you should stop to consider that right now you are "taxed" on those things presently (actually whether you buy them or not) since every dollar you earn is potentially subject to taxes.
So presently you have no choice and everything is taxed by reducing the money you receive forcing you to buy with taxed funds. You think that's somehow preferable to taxing only items you choose to buy (and even then, only those that are taxable under the bill)?
I find your reasoning a bit odd.
What are you going to do when your rent goes up 30% on day one of the Federal FraudTax?
If that's the prescription under which the FairTax (or any other for that matter) - you'll never see it.
There's no reason to wait forlornly for all that, however, since the FairTax eliminates the income tax, etc., the IRS, and requires the income tax records to be destroyed and calls for the repeal of the 16th amendment.
A tax bill is not a spending bill nor an amendment repeal bill. Those requirements are all very different - but will come along. The FairTax offers us a method of putting political pressure on Congress to help reduce spending which cannot now be hidded from the VERY visible tax shown in your FairTax receipt.
I know of no such tax, roggie. Nor do you. Try rephrasing that.
What you claim is flatly untrue and you've had that pointed out to you many times by meny different posters.
Why still keep up the lying pretense?
And you hink that taking all taxes out of the consumers income somehow doesn't make consumers pay 100% of the taxes right now?
Read a few pages of the FairTax bill - it (the income tax)is eliminated.
Unless you don't have much an income, you're already paying this - its just being extracted by income tax withholding. The tax is supposed to be revenue neutral.
Read the bill. It eliminates the income tax.
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.