I'm tired of IRS paperwork every year -- We Need a Change Now!

[AlpineTrout]

Quote from canyonman00:


And let us not factor in government corruption, mortgage bailouts, banking troubles, housing slowdowns, wall street jitters....the need to save social security. And have you noticed that administrative costs are never even close to target. But they'll start now with Fair Taxes I'm sure.

Huh? If this has something to do with the FairTax, please inform me.

 

[AlpineTrout]

Quote from canyonman00:

Having read it, I do not agree with some of the positions and projections. And having spoken to Mr. Boortz personally, face-to-face, and raising some questons as they pertained to his plan, I am not impressed. After my fully laying out my fellow African Americans' postions and factoring in what some of what he called "plausable scenarios," he said that, "As with any of these plans there will have to be adjustments along the way."

It's not Boortz's plan, he wrote about it. $22 mil was spent on research for this idea.

Please be more specific about how African Americans "positions" (or any Americans for that matter) will be negatively effected by the FairTax. I really don't get what you're saying.

 

[AlpineTrout]

Quote from canyonman00:


I also asked him if we might visit a scenario where within his plan we could cover ALL the ills of social security and a social society that wants everyone to have as much as they desire.

The FairTax would collect the same amount of money that is currently collected for social security. There would no longer be payroll taxes nor self-employment tax.

As far as "a social society that wants everyone to have as much as they desire", the FairTax doesn't provide this. It's a very simple idea.

 

[AlpineTrout]

Quote from canyonman00:

Are we implying here that they currently don't pay taxes on the purchases at Wendy's because they are illegal or visitors to the country? What happens when they see the taxes as just too much to spend there?

Two things:

1) Its very clear you don't understand the FairTax

2) If Illegals see the tax as too high (which they won't, because prices will be about the same, since embedded taxes will be removed) then maybe we won't have to cart their asses out of here, because they'll do it themselves.

 

[AlpineTrout]

Quote from canyonman00:

Whack the poor again! For shame, the very poor that we're supposedly aiding can't even afford the burgers they are flipping. Oh wait....food stamps! Duh!

If you read the book, and you claim to have talked to Boortz, don't you remember that little detail about every household receiving a prebate check?

Under the FairTax plan, the poor are completely exonerated from paying ANY federal or payroll tax. What more could a liberal want???

 

[bigarrow]

Quote from AlpineTrout:

If you read the book, and you claim to have talked to Boortz, don't you remember that little detail about every household receiving a prebate check?

Under the FairTax plan, the poor are completely exonerated from paying ANY federal or payroll tax. What more could a liberal want???

What does being "liberal" have to do with leaving a poor person enough money to buy food?
But honestly do you think our congressmen and women can write a simple, workable, fair tax bill? I don't. Face it we are stuck with our crappy tax and spend government and it doesn't matter who is elected democrats or republicans.

 

[canyonman00]

And you honestly believe that the states will take less with the increased needs that they claim that aren't being met now? There's always a reason to spend more. Modernization, replacement, past raises now available to be advanced. Something will always need more money. If no more than to now give the GOOD RAISES to the underpaid!

Quote from TopTrader8:

Honestly, do you really think that state and local taxes are going to remain the same once a national sales tax is in place?

The state and local authorities should have to collect less (much less )because they should be able receive more annual funding from the federal level since there should be more money coming in.

 

[canyonman00]

Hmmm, all that spending is not improving his savings, investments, or any rainy day cushions. All you see here is the economic boost? That does not do anything for the person and the climb on the economic bases. And that's where the education needs to be. That's where the true grey area is here. Sounds like you want them to just spend. I want them to save, invest and plan. And initially, spend very little!

Your scenario calls for them to keep spending and buying so the economy gets a drive. I would encourage them to kill their debt and increase their long term investments. We're painting two different pictures. Which one has a longer term PERSONAL benefit?

I have a bit of an advantage on you on the business question. In the case of my own businesses, no I don't need to add permanent manpower to meet the increase. But I'm probably rare. In many of my client's businesses, I have shown them how to use the benefits of technology instead of running out to hire another body. I helped three start-up businesses this past year and all of them did not go the traditional route of their own bricks and mortar operations. All are flourishing with minimal staffs and expenses.

Oh, and I only added one other guy for a contract position for three months to cover the increased workload. And I added him at the just-in-time moment and when the contract was over, so was the expense. Yet the revenue continues....

Quote from TopTrader8:

So what if the the rich guy decides not to spend much.

How much do you want to bet that the little guy is going to hold back on his spending when he now has all of his income at his disposal to do as he pleases with it?

There are many more little guys out there than there are rich guys. And, with all of the spending that is going to be generated by the little guy because he gets to keep all of his paycheck under the fair tax system, he alone will be able to give a strong boost to the economy without much participation from the rich guys.

All of that spending is going to generate more demand for goods and services and this would mean more hiring will be required.

Are you saying that in your own situation that if your volume production experiences tremendous increases that you will still not have a need to hire more people?

I'm sure that if business picks up that much for you, you'll be hiring new people in a New York minute.

 

[TopTrader8]

Quote from canyonman00:

Hmmm, all that spending is not improving his savings, investments, or any rainy day cushions. All you see here is the economic boost? That does not do anything for the person and the climb on the economic bases. And that's where the education needs to be. That's where the true grey area is here. Sounds like you want them to just spend. I want them to save, invest and plan. And initially, spend very little!

Your scenario calls for them to keep spending and buying so the economy gets a drive. I would encourage them to kill their debt and increase their long term investments. We're painting two different pictures. Which one has a longer term PERSONAL benefit?

I never said that he would not have anything left over for savings and investments. What I am basically saying is that he will be left with more ability to make any of these choices because he will be in control of his entire paycheck.

 

[TopTrader8]

I have a bit of an advantage on you on the business question. In the case of my own businesses, no I don't need to add permanent manpower to meet the increase. But I'm probably rare. In many of my client's businesses, I have shown them how to use the benefits of technology instead of running out to hire another body. I helped three start-up businesses this past year and all of them did not go the traditional route of their own bricks and mortar operations. All are flourishing with minimal staffs and expenses.

Oh, and I only added one other guy for a contract position for three months to cover the increased workload. And I added him at the just-in-time moment and when the contract was over, so was the expense. Yet the revenue continues....

Well at least you are honest. And, this only proves my point that an increased workload will require more job creation -- no matter how temporary it is.

Furthermore, what if your increased workload were 5-fold, how many temporary positions might you create then?