To the extent that the maket is actually free (sans coerced subsidies and coerced trade protections/barriors) price competition will deliver justice to consumers.
-Terry Liberty Parker AND Find More Free On-demand Playbacks On-line via AustinLibertyInterNet Radio/TV at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LibertyProspects/links --- In [email protected], "kiddleddee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Another problem that I see with the "fair" tax is this: According to > even the "Fair Tax" people, since businesses pass their tax burden on > to consumers in the form of higher prices, income taxes (directly or > indirectly) make up more than 20% of the retail price of products - > others say MUCH more! Does that mean that with the passage of > the "fair" tax, retail prices will immediately come down 20% (or > more)? Or does that mean that the "fair" tax will mean a 20%(or > higher) government-mandated boondoggle for businesses at the expense > of consumers? > > > --- In [email protected], "Thomas L. Knapp" > <thomaslknapp@> wrote: > > > > Quoth Boyd W. Smith: > > > > > There is an old saying that says that the perfect is the enemy of > > the better. The fair tax while not perfect is clearly much better. > > > > Only if by "clearly much better" you mean it: > > > > - Results in the theft by government of just as much money as the > > income tax (the "Fair" Taxers boast that their proposal is "revenue > > neutral"); > > > > - Results in the same amount of, or perhaps more, redistribution of > > wealth than the income tax (the "Fair" Taxers boast that their > > proposal is at least as "progressive" as the income tax); > > > > - Puts every American on the dole so that they're recipients of > > monthly government welfare checks which the majority will likely > fight > > tooth and nail to keep coming in perpetuity (the "prebate"); and > > > > - The "Fair" Taxers arguments about eliminating the IRS aside, > _will_ > > require a bureaucracy to administer (both to collect and to send out > > the welfare checks). > > > > The "Fair Tax" is at _least_ as bad as the income tax in every way, > > and worse in some ways. It's not a tax cut. It's not a tax > > elimination. It's just a strengthening of the tax system by linking > it > > to a welfare program -- just like Social Security, which has been a > > "third rail" issue in American politics for half a century precisely > > because millions of Americans have a vested interest in keeping the > > checks coming. > > > > It may not be politically possible to get the income tax straight- > out > > eliminated right now, but it is politically possible to get it CUT, > > which would be a far superior alternative to the "Fair" Tax. > > > > The Boston Tea Party's program calls for universal, bottom-up tax > cuts > > as follows: > > > > "The Boston Tea Party calls for legislation adopting an annual, > > regularized increase in the personal exemption to the federal income > > tax of $1,000 or more, and the additional application of said > personal > > exemption to all FICA/Social Security taxes paid by employees and > > employers." > > > > Members of Congress (mostly Democrats) routinely propose and vote > for > > increases to the personal exemption, so it's politically doable. > > > > Increases to the personal exemption give EVERYONE who pays taxes a > tax > > cut, from the janitor at the local factory to Bill Gates. > > > > Increases to the personal exemption remove people from the tax rolls > > and withholding treadmill entirely (every time the exemption goes > up, > > more people's income falls below the taxable amount). > > > > Applying the personal exemption to Social Security payments would > > address the extreme regressivity of the Social Security system. The > > poorest people pay proportionately the most in Social Security taxes > > (since the requirement to pay is capped at a certain income level > in, > > I believe, the $60K range), and they receive the fewest benefits > (due > > to shorter lifespan). > > > > Eliminating the income tax is the best option. Failing that, cutting > > it is. Replacing it with a tax that doesn't cut taxes, doesn't > remedy > > redistribution problems, doesn't eliminate (or probably even reduce) > > the associated bureaucratic and administrative costs, and puts every > > American on government welfare is just a scam if the goal is to > reduce > > or eliminate taxation. > > > > Tom Knapp > > > ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
