One thing, under this system, every household gets the prebate. The government needs no knowledge of how much money the individual makes...
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Rob Argento <[email protected]> wrote: > OK. Point well taken. Those against the proposal will try to put it in > the most negated ive light – and those for it in the most positive light. So > what ELSE is new? > > > > But I am afraid that this is not the issue. If we are going to bore the > rest of the power-list with an issue, let’s stick to the issue. So let us > “bother > to discuss the merits of the plan itself.” and not the tactics of the > different proponents. > > > > I THINK that your argument is that the Fair Tax would be good because it is > difficult to manipulate – by congress and those guys in Washington. And > that it would, indeed be “fair” regardless of what rate was chosen. > > > > Mark seems to mean that the rate is too high – regardless if it is 30% > exclusive or 23% inclusive – which is the same rate. > > > > My point was that it isn’t very fair in that it CAN be manipulated by those > who administer it, the businesses who collect it and pass it on to the > government. And it creates a black market which, my experience shows me, is > far more than the 15% someone forecast. It also almost forces me, trying to > be an honest businessman, to sell wares on the black market/ outside of the > system simply in order to be able to compete with dishonest competitors. > Over and above that, the wealthy who can afford to travel outside of the > country to purchase expensive wares (like say a Rolex), easily avoid the tax > in that way. > > > > I am assuming that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet would not be getting a > prebate so in addition, an IRS type of authority might very well be needed > in order to determine income – in that the eligibility of a prebate must be > determined. > > > > We then have a system where money is moved in a circle – the government > collecting money – and sending a portion of it back to some citizens. This > sort of thing ALWAYS costs money – leakage through unnecessary > administration. The government paying me money so I can pay it to you the > vendor who pays it to the government who will take part of it to pay me does > not sound very efficient. Maybe there is a better way. > > > > As I said, “Been there – done that” in my many years in Scandinavia. But > there we have both income tax and this sales tax. Actually I am not > complaining. It has worked well for us as a nation. But as a businessman I > saw it as a mixed blessing. On the negative side it cost me a LOT of time > and administration. AND it also gave me an unfair advantage, my firm being > able to purchase items tax free which maybe I, the owner, would use > privately. > > > > I saw neither efficiency nor fairness as the result of this system. I wish > it were so easy to find a simple, fair and efficient system because the > current system certainly has enough weak points. > > > > *From:* Larry Alster [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Monday, September 28, 2009 12:30 PM > *To:* [email protected]; 'Mark Cookson' > > *Cc:* 'Will Erickson'; [email protected] > *Subject:* RE: NMC - Healthcare Crisis Debate / Gay Marriage /Fair tax > > > > No Robb > > > > My point about the rate was that anytime you see it quoted as 30% it is > being done that way as a deliberate attempt to make the rate look bad and > not bother to discuss the merits of the plan itself. > > > > > > > > > > Larry Alster > > > > 91 Miata White Knight > > 92 Miata Silver Bullet > > 92 Miata Honey B > > 04 MSM MX-5 Whooosh > > 06 WRX STi Subie > > > > *From:* Rob Argento [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Monday, September 28, 2009 12:28 PM > *To:* 'Mark Cookson'; 'Larry Alster' > *Cc:* 'Will Erickson'; [email protected] > *Subject:* RE: NMC - Healthcare Crisis Debate / Gay Marriage /Fair tax > > > > It seems to me that you guys are not discussing the principle of if this > type of tax system would be positive or not. You are simply discussing the > rate. > > > > Mark! Would you support the “fair tax” if the INCLUSIVE rate was 19% (23% > add-on). Larry! Would you still support the “Fair Tax” if it was 30% > inclusive (23% add-on) or would that make it an “UNFair tax”? > > > > Here is the Wikipedias take on it: > > The FairTax legislation would apply a 23 percent federal > retail<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retailing>sales tax on the total > transaction value of a purchase; in other words, > consumers pay to the government 23 cents of every dollar spent in total > (sometimes called *tax-inclusive<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax-inclusive> > *, as income taxes are calculated). The assessed tax rate is 30 percent if > the FairTax is applied to the pre-tax price of a good like traditional U.S. > state sales > taxes<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_taxes_in_the_United_States>(sometimes > called > *tax-exclusive > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax-exclusive>*).[4<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax#cite_note-money-3> > > > > But this is still begging the issue. The RATE is not the issue here. It is > the reality of the “fairness” of such a system. > > Not even Libertarian seems popular. In true American spirit everyone seems > to be an “independent”. > > > > /Robban > > > > > > *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 > >
_______________________________________________ Miatapower mailing list [email protected] http://list.miatapower.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/miatapower
