Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

FairTax

page: 6
5
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 19 2007 @ 11:50 PM
link   
I like it better than the current tax system. Income tax is a mess in itself.

I don't like any form of progressive taxation or that kind of rebate... The "don't register" thing doesn't work since then I don't get my money back.

But yes, it appears to be better than what we have now.



ape

posted on Apr, 20 2007 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike
I like it better than the current tax system. Income tax is a mess in itself.

I don't like any form of progressive taxation or that kind of rebate... The "don't register" thing doesn't work since then I don't get my money back.


you already pay into embedded costs when you purchase goods in the market today, this is money you will never see again. the cost of doing business in this country which means complying with federal law is always passed on to the consumer.

with the fairtax we free the market up and there is no telling how far the prices *COULD* drop and me personally I can afford to live without the rebate and would gladly pay the tax considering all the benefits this will would bring to the country not to mention getting the feds out of my finances. That's the beauty of pure(r) capitalism, the market will determine this rather than government induced distortions in the market. PURE COMPETITION in the largest consumer market will always benefit the consumer.



[edit on 20-4-2007 by ape]



posted on Apr, 22 2007 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Right on ape
keep up the good work.



posted on Apr, 22 2007 @ 04:50 PM
link   
www.lewrockwell.com...

This is interesting.



posted on Apr, 22 2007 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike
www.lewrockwell.com...

This is interesting.


Jim Cox is an idiot..

The Fairtax will show its little face every time you make a purchase. This in turn allows us to know exactly what we are giving to 'Uncle Sam'. Under the current system in place now, there are too many ways for lawmakers to hide taxes from you and me. In other words the fairtax makes the US government more transparent to the american ppl.

The Fair tax lowers the tax burden on 'everyone', while keeping the gov't revenue neutral. The hidden beauty of the FairTax is that you see what you pay every time you buy something. Why should it be 'okay' that we should only look at what the gov't lets us keep? The government effectively takes about 26%-30% out of your paycheck, and if they take too much, then we have to wait a year to get it back with no interest..

The FairTax solves the social security crisis, pays for Medicare, pays down the national debt, and releases our nation’s individuals and businesses (Small and large) to become as successful and productive as they desire. There have been estimates that our nation’s economy would more than double. Even if it only grew by only 40%, the investment and growth in the stock market alone would resolve all of the issues with the major airlines and automobile manufacturers. There will be good high paying jobs for americans! The simplicity of the FairTax frees Americans from our current overwhelming tax code and will strengthen and unshackle the U.S. economy.
Also, the fairtax has been heavily researched and debated for over the past decade.

Also, illegal aliens who get paid "under the table" will have to pay taxes because when they purchase goods at the checkout counter they are paying our taxes. They will also not be eligible to receive the prebate since they ARE NOT american citizens. The fairtax will also make americans more competitve with illegal aliens for jobs. And what about If we make international tourists tax payers by way of the consumption tax, tax revenue increases dramatically! The pros far out weigh the cons. That I assure you. NO current taxation system out there even compares to what the fairtax will do for our nation.

[edit on 113030p://2804pm by semperfoo]


ape

posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike
www.lewrockwell.com...

This is interesting.


interesting indeed. Before I comment on this link I would like to know your take on it, please elaborate for me so I can properly guage your knowledge on this issue and your stance. seems like a driveby link.

keep in mind also john that linder and boortz wrote that book on their own they did not have the permission of AFT who are behind the fairtax, infact AFT was leary of the book. My suggestion to you is to go to fairtax.org and read some of the research papers, independent non partisan studies etc done by our nations universities.. some good reads.


what's up semper, good post.


[edit on 23-4-2007 by ape]



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 08:52 PM
link   
Honestly, I'm not certain. I wanted to see what you said instead of doing a copypasta of the site. Cox just attacked certain parts of the book, and it's hard for someone like me to see how that affects the entire system.


ape

posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 10:16 PM
link   
Beyond the proposal for the FairTax itself, the Neal Boortz/John Linder book has even more verbiage to offend libertarians than it does points we can cheer.

It wasn't intended to promote the agenda of the Libertarian Party. it was intended to promote a replacement for the current income tax. you have to start somewhere practical.

The following is a comprehensive recounting of the bad to be found in The FairTax Book:

The book isn’t about reducing taxes or spending but about funding the entirety of current spending levels (2).

imagine that. a book that is not about reducing federal spending that doesn't address reducing federal spending.

The historical example of the 1872 repeal of the income tax is noted, but the lesson that it was done without trading the income tax for a new tax is overlooked (11).

The book is about FT, not american tax and budget history

The tax trade in the Ruml plan of 1942 – with the taxpayer taking it on the chin – is recounted, but the lesson of not trusting politicians with such tax trades is ignored (27).

Covered Already (CA)

More than an entire chapter is spent celebrating the idea of every household receiving a monthly check from the federal government (79–90).

The term "celebrating" is being used for impact, not an honest review of the content.

A reference to "replacing virtually all personal income and corporate taxes" is slipped in, apparently betraying the book’s claim that the national sales tax will replace all of these taxes (82).

what an idiot. even if FT passes, this doesn't mean that States who currently withhold STATE income taxes will stop collecting them.

There’s a passing reference to politicians who thrive on others’ dependency, but the idea of every household receiving a monthly check from the feds disturbs these authors not at all (88).

why should anyone be bothered by someone receiving a refund of their own money just like a tax refund that one might receive today?.

The authors seem quite stressed over individuals using things such as Offshore Financial Services and Eurodollar transactions to avoid death taxes and other taxes (99–100).

Again, just using language (i.e. "quite stressed") for impact.

The authors want the US to become a tax haven for businesses, but bellyache about other countries being such tax havens (100–101).

the nerve of Boortz to pull for the home team.

Part of the FairTaxers’ propaganda that the intended sales tax rate will generate as much revenue as all of the current income-based federal taxes do today is based on three unrealistic assumptions: 1) no increase in black market activities; 2) governments at all levels paying the tax; and 3) no additional exceptions to what is taxed being implemented (106).

doesn't deserve a response

It is claimed that businesses will no longer need to keep payroll records (108). Then, inconsistently, the authors state that businesses will in fact report the number of quarters of employment to the Social Security Administration (168), while the FairTax.org website states: "Employers continue to report wages for each employee … for the determination of benefits." [emphasis added]

A fine example of taking something completely out of context.

The authors believe that when people avoid any taxes it causes an increase in other people’s taxes (4, 93–94) – despite the fact that at other times they tell us politicians will always spend any additional money they receive (136).

The authors are absolutely right on both points. these concepts are not mutually exclusive.

The authors celebrate the prospect of broadening the tax base for the unconstitutional Social Security program and bemoan the fact that currently Social Security taxes are not levied on dividends (136–137).

there's that "celebrate" word again used to replace the word "explain".

Apparently it is offensive that the IRS would demand that golfer Lee Trevino pay gift taxes on heart surgery he paid for his caddy, but not offensive if he were forced to pay their hefty sales tax on that same surgery (142).

this comment totally ignores the fact that the gift tax is in addition to the current costs of the surgery and that under FT, the price of the surgery (which would end up about the same as it is now) would include the FT.

Revealing a near-psychotic level of naïvety, the authors tell us that the kind of abuses suffered under the IRS "simply wouldn’t happen" once the FairTax is implemented (145–146).

No more tax liens on homes? no more seizures of personal property? no more tax courts for unpaid income taxes? no more prosecutions for those accused of "willful failure to file"? I guess I am, also, psychotically naive.

in the Q & A, we’re told that questions and objections unanswered in the book itself is why we have talk shows and email and that the Neal Boortz Show is the unofficial clearinghouse for the fairtax. yet boortz has avoided answering the objections I have raised (as well as those of others who have contacted me) (148, 179).

He is writing (or has already written) an entire book dedicated to responding to the reasonable questions and objections (and myths) being raised. I have the time to respond to this idiot, boortz does not.

The authors attack doubters who point out that the plan calls for a sales tax rate that is 30% of an item’s price, claiming that such critics "never miss a trick." Yet Boortz and Linder wrongly claim that their misleading, but more appealing, 23%, is the proper figure (152).

This is the proper method (the 23% figure) for expressing an inclusive tax which is embedded into the sticker price.


To further muddy the waters concerning the intended national sales tax rate the book refers to a $100 item as one priced at $77 with the $23 worth of tax. Once upon a time, one of the touted virtues of the proposal was to bring the tax rate out in the open for the taxpayers…now the intention is to hide the tax within the price as politicians currently do with gasoline prices (152, 154)?

Is he suggesting that the currently embedded taxes are not hidden?



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike
Honestly, I'm not certain. I wanted to see what you said instead of doing a copypasta of the site. Cox just attacked certain parts of the book, and it's hard for someone like me to see how that affects the entire system.

For christ sake give us something to work with besides "interesting" and "im not sure". If it was 'interesting' state why you thought it was interesting. I feel like im beating a dead horse in the head here... So many ppl come in here without really reading the whole thread, so i feel the need to make known certain features that really make the fairtax shine. Good on ya for reading the whole thread I guess.
Then If you have certain questions about what I stated maybe we could debate them? You honestly cant blame me, you really didnt give me much to work with...


[edit on 103030p://2404pm by semperfoo]


ape

posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Denying the lessons of marginal analysis, we’re told the deductibility of charitable contributions has no effect on the decision to contribute – in their enthusiasm for this new tax scheme these guys will claim anything to tout the FairTax, it seems (164–165).

"denying the lessons of marginal analysis..." wow. big phrase for a village goon. If give to the ACME foundation for every dollar I give, I save about 25 cents in taxes. gosh, if I give away ten million, I could save 2 1/2 million dollars !

In defiance of all common sense, law, and history the authors claim that politicians will only be able to change the tax rate itself, not which items the tax is applied to, once the FairTax becomes law (166).

it taxes damn near everything under the sun except used goods regarding goods and services. what's left to add?


The authors expect us to cheer at the prospect of the states’ new-found power in collecting an extra $20 billion on sales of goods through the Internet (171).

more rhetoric.

We’re told that the FairTax will not apply to education expenses (at least college and other tuition), while nothing is said about home schooling supplies and other such spending. This is based on the idea that education is an "investment." Of course, this gives away the fact that everyone will be clamoring to have the goods and services they sell officially classified as "investments," thus unraveling the alleged simplicity of the entire scheme and keeping all those K Street lobbyists in business (171).

"nothing is said" because it doesn't need to be said........again. supplies, whether they are for home school or college are taxed. parents don't charge tuition for home schooling.

The authors call for reaching for the possible. But surely there are better possible goals to reach for than building a movement to institute the FairTax. How about for instance, a movement to limit government to its Constitutional functions (174)?

Impossible. N\now, who is speaking "In defiance of all common sense, law, and history"?

A virtue claimed for the FairTax is that it was not written by politicians, though of course the final bill will be. The authors claim in contrast that the income tax was written by politicians, though they ignore their own recounting of how the income tax came from the mind of Karl Marx (175, 180).

They have the audacity to state that "income taxes are seized. Consumption taxes are paid." It’s time to apply the often-stated Boortz challenge: try not paying your [sales] tax and see how voluntary they are (176).

It is impossible to not pay your FT unless your buying nothing but used products and bargain shop. whatever you pay the cashier, 23% is owed to the feds by the store owner

The authors manage to refer to their status-quo-protecting $2.5 trillion take for the feds as "revolutionary legislation" (178).

Is he suggesting that the only legislation that can be considered revolutionary is one which addresses a matter that concerns HIM ? personally, I believe that the transfer of power from the feds back to the people that would result from the passage of FT, would be the most revolutionary event since the minutemen engaged the British at Lexington and Concord.

meh.. when jim cox does research on the bill and puts out research papers he might have more credability. until then he is just blowing out hot air.

[edit on 23-4-2007 by ape]



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 10:33 PM
link   
Ape did fine.

What I don't get is, what the hell do they want to do the whole rebate thing for? Why not just let me keep my money in the first place?



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike
Ape did fine.

What I don't get is, what the hell do they want to do the whole rebate thing for? Why not just let me keep my money in the first place?

You are keeping your whole paycheck. If you make $50,000 a year your going to get $50,000 a year. The rebate is intended to pay for the FairTax on purchases up to the poverty level.



Under the FairTax, households would receive a monthly tax rebate (known as a "prebate" as it would be paid in advance) equal to the estimated total FairTax paid on poverty level spending according to the poverty guidelines published by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.[24] The poverty level guidelines vary by family size and represent the cost to purchase household necessities. The rebate would be paid in twelve monthly installments equal to 23% of poverty level spending for each household size and is meant to eliminate the taxation of necessities and make the plan progressive.[2] The formula used to calculate rebate amounts would be adjusted for inflation. To become eligible for the rebate, households would register once a year with their sales tax administering authority, providing the names and social security numbers of each household member. The Social Security Administration would disburse the monthly rebate payments in the form of a paper check via U.S. Mail, an electronic funds transfer to a bank account, or a “smartcard” that can be used much like a bank debit card.[24] The Beacon Hill Institute estimated the overall rebate cost to be $489 billion (assuming 100% participation).

en.wikipedia.org...




[edit on 113030p://5304pm by semperfoo]



posted on Apr, 24 2007 @ 12:03 AM
link   
...So...

....If you're poor, you get things for free?


ape

posted on Apr, 24 2007 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike
...So...

....If you're poor, you get things for free?


no. every legal household that registers gets compensated for taxes payed on necessities. that money they are getting was theirs to begin with. they are getting nothing for free just compensated for taxes payed on basic necessites.

if we exempted stuff like food among other basic necessites then we would have to raise the sales %. plus one exemption leads to another and another raising the % rate. the point is the fairtax compensates legal households for taxes payed on basic necessities only if they register. those who dont register and those who dont qualify ( illegal aliens ) will be paying the sales tax with no rebate.

simple as that.

[edit on 24-4-2007 by ape]



posted on Apr, 26 2007 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfoo
You are keeping your whole paycheck. If you make $50,000 a year your going to get $50,000 a year. The rebate is intended to pay for the FairTax on purchases up to the poverty level.


Uh, why not print more more and hike up interest rates? And why should people have to pay for "poverty level" people who give ****jobs for crack?



posted on Apr, 26 2007 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Be warned, that site loaded 3 high risk tracking cookies on my computer. They found out my name and emailed me spam. I strongly suggest you get some kind of ad-ware remover or if you already have one, use it.

When I say high risk, that means they have a fast tracking rate. So they get your info faster.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Here's the reply I got From Steve Kagen:


Dear Mr. XXXXXX,
Thank you for allowing me to listen to your support for the Fair Tax Act (H.R. 25). I appreciate you taking time to share your views with me.

Like you, I believe that too many individuals from northeast Wisconsin are burdened with excessive taxes. Moreover, the current income tax system is unfair and filled with special interest exemptions that are not available to average Americans. I am working diligently to lower taxes for all hard-working families.

As you are aware, H.R. 25 would eliminate all Federal income-related taxes, such as personal and corporate income taxes, the payroll tax, the capital gains tax, the self-employment tax, and the estate tax, and replaces them with a 23 percent personal consumption tax on new goods and services.

H.R. 25 has been sent to the House Committee on Ways and Means for further consideration. Should this legislation come to the floor of the House of Representatives, I will be sure to keep your views in mind.

You may be pleased to know that I support adjusting the alternative minimum tax (AMT) so that it does not raise taxes for millions of Americans. The AMT was originally designed to ensure that very wealthy individuals are not able to avoid paying income taxes. However, because it has not been adjusted for inflation, the tax now threatens to raise taxes on middle-class families in Wisconsin. In fact, until Congress stepped in and passed a short-term AMT fix last year, the AMT would have added an average of $2,000 to the annual tax bills of over 62,000 individuals in the 8th congressional district. I am proud to have voted to prevent individuals in northeast Wisconsin from paying more taxes, and I will continue to work toward a permanent fix for the AMT.

Last Congress, I also voted for the Small Business Tax Relief Act (H.R. 976), which provided assistance to local entrepreneurs and family farmers to invest in the equipment and resources they need to remain competitive in today's global economy. In addition, I have repeatedly called for the repeal the estate tax to be enacted as soon as possible.

Please know that I will continue my efforts to simplify our tax code and allow more Americans to keep more of their hard-earned money.

Thank you once again sharing for your concerns with me. By working together, we will build a better nation for all of us.

Sincerely,
Steve Kagen, MD Member of Congress






top topics



 
5
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join