i had to take one more peek before bed. i am adicted
to you guys, you know that. i was up at 4:30 this
morning still awake, so i must get to bed.
you are right deri, my references to the tax avoidance
being in the present system does not answer your
point. however your bringing up tax avoiders is not
really a good arguement against the system either.
i wish i owed a million dollars in taxes every year.
it would mean that i would be rich. i might be an
idiot, but a rich idiot and paying someone to do
things i have to do for my self. now while i feel
that way, i know others would try to avoid tax.i'd
think if you went back in history and found the day
the first tax was levied, you'd find that the next day
there was the first tax avoider trying to avoid
paying. it would be no more grievious in the fair tax
than it is in the income tax. you'll have tax
avoidance in any system. this one would be no
different in that aspect.
having said that, and i have no statistics i would
think that it would be easier in the present system to
hide income than to hide the purchase of some goods
and avoid a tax at every purchase. i mean it would
probably be easier to shuffle income around between
ofgf shore accounts than to hide the fact that i am
driving a new rolls royce around anniston, alabama. or
to shuffle funds around those off shore accounts than
to hide the fact that just yesterday i parked a lear
jet at peachtree dubwoody airport. i could be wrong, i
just think it would be harder in the fair tax system
than the present. but. i am sure there would be people
who tried.
oh by the way, there are some democrat congressmen
that support this if it can be passed without the
republicans getting credit for it. i am willing to
give the democrat party credit if they step up and do
it. if i did not honestly think it would help more
poor perple than it hurt, i'd not be for it.
good night guys. have a good one. be back tomorrow.
--- Deri James <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On Monday 26 March 2007 00:59, ken barber wrote:
> > deri, every family in america would get the
> prebate
> > on spending for necessities of life. only after
> one
> > spends above that level would there be any tax.
> even
> > bill gates, need it or not, would not pay on that
> > level of spending that would be considered poverty
> > level. a persom who only had poverty lebel money
> to
> > spend would probably not spend more. in the
> example of
> > bill gates, he'd blow the poverty level on a small
> > dinner party and them pay the taxes on everything
> else
> > after that. i know you do not want the evul rich
> to
> > get it, but hence the name fair tax.
>
> I feel your not attempting to answer any of the
> points I tried to make below
> (probably my fault for not being clearer). :-(
>
> What is your view on the miser? The non resident
> millionaire? The trivial
> avoidance techniques?
>
> This tax would widen the gulf between rich and poor,
> so, as such, cannot be
> called "fair".
>
> > a lot of the underground ecconomy would get into
> > paying their share, and of course we'd put the
> bite on
> > you rich tourist from the UK. and no prebate for
> you.
> > -:)
>
> An "underground economy" is a cancer on society,
> root it out, don't legitimise
> it by making it pay a "sales" tax!! Would Al Capone
> have gone to prison
> in "FairTax" America.
>
> As a rich tourist I'm sure I'll "have a nice day" -
> until the money runs out!!
>
> Cheers
>
> Deri
>
>
> > --- Deri James <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> > > Hi Ken,
> > >
> > > On Sunday 25 March 2007 22:41, ken barber wrote:
> > > > extendedfamilies are considered separately
> here
> > >
> > > and
> > >
> > > > granny would get her own pre-bate separatly.
> so
> > >
> > > thats
> > >
> > > > not a real problem. it does consider
> dependernts
> > >
> > > as
> > >
> > > > the prebate is set by size of family as the
> povety
> > > > levels are set by the government. so that is
> not
> > > > actally a problem.
> > >
> > > Granny would be considered part of the
> "Qualified
> > > Family". You are allowed to
> > > specify more than one recipient for the prebate
> > > payment, it says "then the
> > > prebate payment will be divided evenly among
> those
> > > persons designated". So
> > > Granny gets half, you get half. It also does not
> say
> > > whether Granny is given
> > > the full consumption entitlement (of $10,210) or
> a
> > > dependants entitlement (of
> > > $3,480).
> > >
> > > It does not specify how prebate would work in
> non
> > > family environments, group
> > > homes for the disabled, homeless shelters.
> > >
> > > > actual cost for a family is set by povaty
> level.
> > >
> > > if
> > >
> > > > you spend more than the desingnated levelthen
> you
> > >
> > > are
> > >
> > > > not poor. ie level of povety for a family of 4
> is
> > > > presently set by the government.
> > >
> > > That is not a workable definition of poverty. A
> > > miser who earns millions but
> > > spends very little is not "poor", although,
> > > according to your definition
> > > above, he would be. A millionaire who commuted
> by
> > > private jet to his palace
> > > in the carribean every weekend, and lived in a
> posh
> > > hotel during the week
> > > (rent free because he owns the hotel), would be
> poor
> > > (remember it carefully
> > > says that spending outside the USA is not
> counted).
> > >
> > > The only "fair" definition of poverty is one
> that
> > > looks at disposable wealth,
> > > not what you spend.
> > >
> > > > if a person spend
> > > > more, then they are above the povety level or
> are
> > > > spending beyond their means. the u.s.
> government
> > >
> > > isnot
> > >
> > > > and should not be into telling people how much
> > >
> > > they
> > >
> > > > can spend, however they are pre-bated based on
> > >
> > > what
> > >
> > > > the government sets as the povaty level. if
> they
> > >
> > > just
> > >
> > > > exemted foods for example then a millionair
> could
> > >
> > > buy
> > >
> > > > balooga csviar tax free. that would a gross
> > >
> > > injustice.
> > >
> > > I actually would prefer Baluga Caviar to be tax
> > > free. If the millionaire is
> > > taxed on his income, and he chooses to eat
> caviar,
> > > he should be able to just
> > > like anyone else. Equally, if a tramp (who has
> also
> > > paid tax on his income)
> > > sets aside $1 a month into his "Baluga" fund, it
> > > would patently not be fair
> > > for him to pay the same tax as the millionaire.
> > >
> > > > this has been studied extensively by harvard
> > > > ecconomics depatment to get all the nuances
> that
> > >
> > > needs
> > >
> > > > to be addressed. it is actually one of the
> most
> > > > studied bill ever to be introduced in the U.S.
> > > > Congress.
> > >
> > > You're tarnishing the name of Harvard Academics
> > > here, if a thicko limey like
> > > me can see this idea has more holes than a swiss
> > > cheese after a swarm of
> > > mice, it doesn't reflect well on a group of
> wealthy
> > > professors.
> > >
> > > Apart from the arguments in my previous email on
> > > "prebate" (which you haven't
> > > answered yet) think about these things.
> > >
> > > Capital Leakage (have part of your income paid
> into
>
=== message truncated ===
____________________________________________________________________________________
Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels
in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097
-----------------------
To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY list, go here:
http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy
|
