How about a total govt budget cap of 25 percent of GNP.  Never more.  Then it 
matters less how it's collected since the total will be faaar less.

-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Argento <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2009 5:30 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: NMC - Healthcare Crisis Debate / Gay Marriage /Fair tax

Well, at this point it doesn’t really matter much if it is 23% or 30%. It is 
more the feasibility of the plan.  As with all taxes the rate, should it be 
instituted, would probably go both up and down depending on who is in power and 
what funds were needed.  
 
The 30% figure was not a lie – it was a misunderstanding.  Someone just figured 
backwards.  IF the added on tax was 30% then 23% of what one would pay would be 
taxes.  The proposal as interpreted by Larry is a 23% add on making 19% of the 
price paid taxes. So, probably no liars nor idiots, merely frayed tempers. But, 
as I said, I would think it is the PRINCIPLE of such a system we are discussing 
– not the detail. 
 
I am assuming that the current suggested rate, 23%, was suggested to make the 
revenue equal to the amount brought in by income taxes – when the proposal was 
written.  We know that income tax revenues vary, decreasing in times of great 
unemployment thus adding to budget deficits.  But by definition this current is 
meant to be budget/tax neutral, bringing in no more nor no less than the income 
tax of today.  If this truly IS the case, none of us really know. We just have 
to trust the guy who did the calculation. 
 
That the IRS would be closed may or may not be true.  Some authority would have 
to administer and enforce the new system. In my business we put in very many 
hours  every month figuring out how much money we were to pay in monthly.  And 
the authorities kept very busy auditing very many businesses just to keep us 
honest. And, I as said before, the rate of undeclared, falsely declared or 
wrongly declared taxes `was pretty high.  This was in a system of 25%, quite 
close to the 23% proposed.  I sometimes felt that I was working more as a tax 
man than a businessman, the amount of effort we had to put into keeping the 
books straight. 
 
But, sure.  Give it a try.  I understand how the grass can look greener from 
your side of the fence. But taxes are taxes. And people are people and it 
probably won’t be more or less fair than the willingness of people to pay it – 
and that on the value citizens get for their tax dollar.  AS it is today, you 
guys get the strongest military machine in the history of mankind. And not much 
more of anything else. And if that works for you, then fine. 
 
For me it’s  “Been there.  Done that” on a consumption tax so I will probably 
wait until the next suggestion for tax reform before jumping on the band 
wagon.  I don’t think it is a BAD idea, but I don’t think it is a very good one 
either. It simply shuffles the deck a bit.  I just don’t see it as a panacea 
but it is positive that someone is at least trying.  
 
Is it true that it is only the American Libertarians who are supporting this?  
I have not seen anything suggesting that the dominating political parties are 
at all interested in tax reforms.  
 
 
/Robban
 
 
From: Sunday, September 27, 2009 7:36 PM
 To: 'Mark Cookson'; 'Will Erickson'
 Cc: [email protected]; 'Rob Argento
Mark
 
This site  http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer  will give you the real info 
without any 30% on top of your cost BS.  As soon as you hear someone quoting 
30% it is a tip off that they are stretching the facts since the projected tax 
will be 23%.  The 30% number comes because of the way they try to run the 
numbers.
 
 
 
 
Larry Alster
 
91 Miata  White Knight
92 Miata  Silver Bullet
92 Miata  Honey B
04 MSM MX-5 Whooosh
06 WRX STi Subie
 
From: [email protected] 
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mark Cookson
 Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2009 6:03 PM
 To: Will Erickson
 Cc: [email protected]; Larry Alster; Rob Argento
 Subject: Re: NMC - Healthcare Crisis Debate / Gay Marriage /Fair tax
 
So I was reading up on "FairTax" (one word, not two) on factcheck.org (which I 
believe is a reasonably accurate and unbiased site) and was quite startled by 
how much I didn't like it.
 
It taxes things that have never been taxed before, like house purchases, rent, 
and interest payments.  I don't the idea of paying 30% more for my house, or 
then paying a 30% tax on the interest for the loan (which would itself be 30% 
more than I would have needed to borrow).
 
They believe that 15% of people will dodge this tax (just like 15% of people 
currently dodge the current tax system), and that's factored into the need for 
a 30% value to keep the federal government's income level the same as before.  
But, if people stop buying stuff, or stop borrowing stuff (isn't there like a 
couple billion dollars in interest paid every year?), then the government's 
income level falls and they'll need to raise the rate.
 
I worry that it would reduce the amount of consumption in the US, and for an 
economy that runs on consumption, that's going to be a problem for everyone.
 
I also worry that a lot of money out there wouldn't be taxed (which might or 
might not currently be taxed) because it just sits in stocks/bonds/mutual 
funds/savings and never gets spent.  I don't know if this money, or just the 
interest it's earning, would be taxed, and if it's not taxed, then I think 
that's definitely missing the idea of a "fair tax".  At least with the current 
income tax that money was taxed before it bought the stocks, etc, but now it 
won't be and that means that they have to increase the tax rate on everything 
else.
 
So, if Warren Buffet sits around with 40 billion dollars in the bank and never 
buys a new house (which he hasn't done in like 30 years), and generally doesn't 
buy much "stuff", how is this a "fair tax"?  After all, rich people really 
don't buy all that much more stuff (after a while, all that extra money isn't 
really useful), in fact some of them got rich by NOT spending their money (I 
know I would have a lot more if I didn't keep dumping it into cars and 
computers)
 
I for one would love to make 20% more income and start living like a pauper, 
not buying anything, just so that I could watch my bank account grow, but if 
I'm not mistaken, that's what got Japan into it's recession -- something that 
it's just now getting out of some 20 years later.
 
I like the idea of a flat tax on income without any loopholes.  Actually, come 
to think of it, I like a graduated tax without any loopholes, which would be 
what we would have if we just removed the loopholes.
 
Mark
On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 3:09 PM, Will Erickson <[email protected]> 
wrote:
I have to say I'm kind of enjoying these emails. I think Bill's right, the
 FM turbo's are now so well sorted we just don't have many problems to try
 and solve. 3 years strong on my 94 FM2 and have yet to experience any issues
 other than bad plug wires and a blown off intercooler pipe.

 Here's my contribution to the dialog: http://www.ronpaul.com/

 Will
 (going back to my quiet little corner)
----- Original Message -----
 From: "Larry Alster" <[email protected]>
To: "'Rob Argento'" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
 Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2009 1:52 PM
 Subject: RE: NMC - Healthcare Crisis Debate / Gay Marriage /Fair tax


 > Again you need to read the info on the bill.  It's not the same as a flat
 > tax or a VAT for a number of different reasons.
 >
 > Not the least of which is the Prebate which allows the "poor" to live
 > virtually tax free.
 >
 >
 >
 >
 > Larry Alster
 >
 > 91 Miata  White Knight
 > 92 Miata  Silver Bullet
 > 92 Miata  Honey B
 > 04 MSM MX-5 Whooosh
 > 06 WRX STi Subie
 >
 >
 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: [email protected]
 > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Rob Argento
 > Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2009 3:41 PM
 > To: [email protected]
 > Subject: RE: NMC - Healthcare Crisis Debate / Gay Marriage /Fair tax
 >
 > I have not taken part in the "debate" in that it hasn't been very
 > informative. I have heard the same
 > old arguments/accusations from all.  But I DO believe that there is a need
 > for exchange and debate.
 > I only wish it was a bit more civil and not a boxing contest to see who
 > can
 > get in the quickest
 > blows. If you guys have a hard time understanding the civil war in
 > Yugoslavia, neighbor against
 > neighbor, just reread your own exchange.
 >
 > Besides, I lurk here to read about Miata power issues, not uninformative
 > debates and verbal boxing
 > matches.
 >
 > That being said, I found it interesting that the concept of the "fair tax"
 > was brought up. And Larry
 > is, of course, right in saying that we should look at it before simply
 > throwing it out based upon
 > its name or which politicians have brought it up.
 >
 > As I understand it the "Fair tax" is a tax paid on consumption of
 > services,
 > goods, whatever paid by
 > the end buyer.  Much like a sales tax or the European VAT or the Swedish
 > MOMS.  Yes, there are
 > differences, but for all practical purposes it is a tax not on income but
 > taken out when you USE the
 > money for your own pleasure or need.
 >
 > While the American designers of this proposal probably mean well, I have
 > lived under this system
 > and, quite frankly, it doesn't work and is far from being fair. In Sweden
 > (and Denmark) this tax is
 > 25%.  Something that would have cost $100  actually costs me $125.  It is
 > a
 > 25% added on tax - or
 > counted backwards, 20% of all money I spend is tax.  Well,  sounds fair
 > but...
 >
 > What is created is an enormous black market.  Someone comes to me and
 > wants
 > to buy a computer for
 > let us say $1000.  Well, actually I only get $800. $200 is tax which I
 > will
 > hand over to Uncle Sven.
 > My company will make a profit on the $800 and this I pay a tax on. My
 > customer only HAS $800 to
 > spend.  Do I say no to the sale or just keep it off of the books. In fact
 > if
 > I keep it off of the
 > books, I will reduce my profit and thus my income tax (for in Sweden we
 > also
 > have an income tax).
 >
 > The system creates an incentive to make one's major purchases outside of
 > the
 > country. Why should I
 > buy my BMW in Sweden if I can go to Poland and buy it there for 20% less?
 > Or clothing, or
 > electronics or food or gasoline if I live near a boarder? OK,  most people
 > can't afford to travel
 > that far, but those with the MOST money to spend most often have even the
 > means to travel and an
 > even bigger incentive - in that richer people simply buy more stuff.
 >
 > So, the poor schmuck with not much money can hardly take advantage of this
 > part of the black market.
 > Well, he can buy stuff that others smuggle in - like booze, cigarettes,
 > and
 > whatever there are high
 > profits and good demand for.  In fact, the smugglers goods ARE in higher
 > demand.  They cost 20%
 > less!
 >
 > On top of that, I who may be trying to run a legit business, simply can't
 > compete with the black
 > marketer.  He will always be cheaper that I for the same goods or the same
 > service.
 >
 > OK, you guys might hate your income taxes and your IRS.  That is probably
 > natural - but take another
 > look at any suggestion to replace it.  We all want a fair tax.  If you can
 > make it any more fair,
 > please do! I am open to all suggestions.  But the current proposal for a
 > "fair tax" and its distant
 > cousin, the "flat tax" both seems to me not to solve anything at all.
 >
 >
 > /Robban - who commutes sort of between Europe and Florida though not in my
 > MSM.
 >
 >
 >
 >
 > Message: 1
 > Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:16:45 -0400
 > From: "Larry Alster" <[email protected]>
 > Subject: RE: NMC - Healthcare Crisis Debate / Gay Marriage
 > To: "'Dan Scolnick'" <[email protected]>, "'Casey Wheeler'"
 > <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
 > Cc: [email protected]
 > Message-ID: <05b101ca3f9e$ac667960$05336c...@net>
 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
 >
 > Hey Dan
 >
 >
 >
 > Rather than just making stupid comments about it why don't you try the
 > concept about reading up on it before you mouth off.
 >
 > Larry Alster
 >
 >
 > _______________________________________________
 > Miatapower mailing list
 > [email protected]
 > http://list.miatapower.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/miatapower
 >
 > _______________________________________________
 > Miatapower mailing list
 > [email protected]
 > http://list.miatapower.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/miatapower

 _______________________________________________
 Miatapower mailing list
[email protected]
http://list.miatapower.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/miatapower
 
_______________________________________________
Miatapower mailing list
[email protected]
http://list.miatapower.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/miatapower

Reply via email to