I didn't mean it to say you were a Democrat. I meant it to say that the facts you quote are exactly what the Democrats against the plan start out spewing.
The first thing is the magic, "It will cost you 30%" Even factcheck.org has links posted to articles saying factcheck is wrong. http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/Fairtaxrebuttal1.doc The basics are No withholding taxes at all No taxes on anything but a completed product when it is sold for the first time. A prebate given to all to remove the tax burden on costs at the poverty level. There is just way too much to cover here but if you read something by the people who actually wrote the law instead of a think tank that is against it you will see it's a plan that should a lot to stimulate the economy without hurting the "poor". The problem is it does one thing the government would hate, it takes away the power of Congress to control taxes breaks for the special interests. Larry Alster 91 Miata White Knight 92 Miata Silver Bullet 92 Miata Honey B 04 MSM MX-5 Whooosh 06 WRX STi Subie From: Mark Cookson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 11:58 AM To: Larry Alster Cc: Will Erickson; Rob Argento; [email protected] Subject: Re: NMC - Healthcare Crisis Debate / Gay Marriage /Fair tax Hi Larry, First off, I'm not a Democrat (or a Republican for that matter). So if factcheck.org is lying, point me to a site that's not. Factcheck.org is typically considered a reliable source. The 30% number is based on: FairTax proponents object to the 30 percent number, claiming that critics use the larger number to frighten people. Americans for Fair Taxation claims that it uses the tax-inclusive number to make it easier to compare the FairTax to the income tax that it will replace (since most of us think of income tax rates on an inclusive basis). But we are not accustomed to thinking of sales taxes inclusively. The result is that many FairTax supporters (about 15 percent of those who wrote to us, for example) do not understand that the 23 percent figure is tax inclusive. So it's not that I don't know what I'm talking about, it's that I'm talking about it in a form that levels the playing field with respect to how people currently think about taxes. I'm no math major, but I know how percentages work, and I'm able to compute them back and forth as long I know the reference point. For any useful discussion we need to agree on a common frame of reference, and I'm more than willing to use yours, but you should also be able to mount a cogent argument using my numbers, because after all, they're identical, just with a different frame of reference. Remember, only the speed of light is a constant, everything else requires a reference frame to be meaningful. Also, nowhere on the factcheck site do they talk about the sale of a house only being taxed once, so I figured that the sale would be taxed every time. If that's not the case, then I'm relieved, but even if that's the case, you're still going to have sellers pass that cost along to the next buyer. Their claim that interest rates would fall is a baseless claim and sounds like wishful thinking; income tax rates have no direct correlation to interest rates (for instance, my last mortgage was based on LIBOR, which isn't even a US based interest rate, so US taxes are extremely unlikely to affect it). There's no guarantee that prices would go down just because of the FairTax coming into existence. While's it's true that businesses pay taxes, it's not true that they pass those taxes 100% on to the consumer. Part of those costs are passed on to their employees and share holders along with reduced R&D and cheaper coffee in the break room. So I might get a raise, but that seems unlikely to happen immediately (I would at least have to wait for my yearly review). While you claim that I'm stupid and uninformed, you've failed to address any of the concerns I brought up later in my e-mail. Please address those. As a Skeptic I'm used to having to correct people over and over again, and while it can be frustrating, it's our cross to bear for trying to educate people. So if you're not willing to educate me, then I respectfully request that you stop denigrating me. Mark On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Larry Alster <[email protected]> wrote: Jerry Take this with all the love it's intended. YOU'RE AN IDIOT I stopped reading your message after the 2nd paragraph because it's clearly apparent you either didn't read anything or you didn't understand a thing you read. Like a typical Democrat you use exactly the FALSE argument against the FairTax. Nothing will go up 30%, nothing will even go up 23% which is the projected tax and if factcheck told you that then I apologize for calling you and idiot and will call them liars. ALL taxes go away except for the FairTax, which means the companies building and selling you the house are paying no taxes on it as it's built so the cost goes down by all those embedded taxes and the FairTax is added on when the house is sold. For the first time only., Go back and read some more or find a site that's not lying about the plan. Larry Alster 91 Miata White Knight 92 Miata Silver Bullet 92 Miata Honey B 04 MSM MX-5 Whooosh 06 WRX STi Subie From: Mark Cookson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2009 6:03 PM To: Will Erickson Cc: Larry Alster; Rob Argento; [email protected] 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
