Comments on: Saxby Chambliss wins with support from some libertarians, but not all

By: JimDavidson

JimDavidson — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 05:32:04 +0000

@24 I think that depends on the cost of the 2% change. If you sabotage an effort to make a 50% change because you feel that you must do so in order to get the cooperation of the GOP in making the 2% change, then I think you have done 48% damage.

By: langa

langa — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 00:26:01 +0000

Regarding the tax issue, as Ron Paul points out so often, it doesn’t matter how the money is raised. It only matters how much the government spends. Since they can’t create (real) money out of thin air, every dime they spend is a dime that’s stolen from someone. Changing the method of collection is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

By: langa

langa — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 00:21:33 +0000

“Between Bob Barr and Neil Boortz, I have a full time job disavowing the â€œlibertarianâ€ nature of the fair tax – especially here in Georgia.”

Ah, Neil Boortz. With libertarians like him, who needs statists?

By: Trent Hill

Trent Hill — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 23:58:49 +0000

There is no incentive for a business to hide the tax, better to make their prices appear lower than to lose money to the competition, who will do that inevitably.

I did read the articles, and had read some of them previously. I understand the logistical reasons to not back the FairTax—which is why I dont. The income tax would NOT be removed after the FairTax was instated. But speaking theoretically–if given the choice of the income tax/death tax/etc or the FairTax–I prefer the FairTax.

And yes,all taxes are regressive.

“In this case it is replacing it with something that is 666% evil.”

Explain how the Fairtax is MORE evil? It is definetly less evil, though not much so. To say its 6x sounds ridiculous to me.

To be clear, I despise both the income tax and FairTax. I suppose eliminating the income tax and replacing it with….nothing!

By: paulie cannoli

paulie cannoli — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 23:55:56 +0000

All good.

It’s silent but deadly

By: kiddleddee

kiddleddee — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 23:51:19 +0000

Sorry about that! But that e is silent after all.

By: paulie cannoli

paulie cannoli — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 23:40:03 +0000

Pauli, @#20. The fair tax will absolutely be hidden in the price.

Kind of like the letter e in Paulie

By: kiddleddee

kiddleddee — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 23:35:21 +0000

Pauli, @#20. The fair tax will absolutely be hidden in the price. That’s the only way they can hide the fact that they are lying about the “fair tax” being 23%, instead of the 30% that it actually is – and the more than 50% it will have to be if it is to replace the income tax and all the other taxes it is supposed to replace.

By: paulie cannoli

paulie cannoli — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 23:34:37 +0000

As for it being regressiveâ€”all taxes are regressive,that is a given.

Not so.

If I can replace something 100% evil with something 98% evil

In this case it is replacing it with something that is 666% evil.

By: paulie cannoli

paulie cannoli — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 23:33:00 +0000

If it was a replacement, not an addition.

Never works out that way in practice. And even then I would still be against it. You should actually read those articles to see why.

What would be beneficial to the business about listing a higher price?

Staying on friendly terms with the regime, for starters. It will become a great tool to track all purchases (which will soon enough be needed for enforcement) and is a great disincentive to business formation. It will screw people who saved all their lives and then get taxed again when they spend the money. There are just so many reasons that the “fair” tax is a fraud. The best thing would be to read the articles.

By: paulie cannoli

paulie cannoli — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 23:28:08 +0000

Let me guess, you didn’t read those articles, did you?

By: Trent Hill

Trent Hill — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 22:20:53 +0000

I am not an all or nothing kind of guy. If I can replace something 100% evil with something 98% evil…then I consider that a 2% improvement. It doesnt mean im satisfied with 98%…I will continue to rail against that evil too.

By: JimDavidson

JimDavidson — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 22:08:49 +0000

@21 Sometimes the choir needs a bit of inspiration, too. You should listen to some of these choirs.

Holtz wants a smaller government? I’ve seen no evidence of it.

By: Trent Hill

Trent Hill — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 21:28:56 +0000

“I think that the custom will become to list the total price, including the tax, like it is with gasoline.”

It happens with gasoline because you prepay gasoline or watch it rack up. What would be beneficial to the business about listing a higher price?

By: Trent Hill

Trent Hill — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 21:28:03 +0000

“The only moral position, Trent, is the one stated by Ron Paul. Eliminate the income tax and replace it with nothing. Eliminate government spending to match, if need be.”

Preaching to the choir. Im not supporting the fairtax. Im in favor of eliminating the income tax and replacing it with nothing. But, like Ron Paul, I would vote to replace with income tax with the Fairtax if it came up. If it was a replacement, not an addition. As for it being regressive—all taxes are regressive,that is a given.

Also, I dont believe for a second that Holtz wants to grow the government. He wants to shrink it alot, just not as much as you.

By: paulie cannoli

paulie cannoli — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 21:26:49 +0000

I think that the custom will become to list the total price, including the tax, like it is with gasoline.

By: Trent Hill

Trent Hill — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 21:25:28 +0000

“On the contrary – I predict it will be included in the price, so you will never be confronted with it.”

That would be stupid. If a company can list the price of a coke bottle at 1.19 or 1.35—which do YOU think they’ll list?

By: JimDavidson

JimDavidson — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 21:02:46 +0000

A consumption tax is regressive, in that there are certain kinds of consumption it always targets. Wealthy people can avoid consuming, say, another super yacht purchase, to avoid the consumption tax. Poor people cannot avoid consuming, say, another fifty pound bag of rice, because they have to eat.

Consumption based taxes conscript merchants to tally and collect the taxes, track any relevant exemptions, etc.

The only moral position, Trent, is the one stated by Ron Paul. Eliminate the income tax and replace it with nothing. Eliminate government spending to match, if need be.

The fair tax isn’t fair, it’s stupid. The worst part of it is that when consumption taxes are added, such as value added taxes, the claim is always that they add the new tax and then get rid of the income tax. But, inevitably, the income tax never goes away.

Of course, the fools promoting the fair tax refuse to look at this matter in any detail. In country after country after country, consumption taxes are added and income taxes are not removed. It is pathetic. But, people who want a bigger government, but wish to pretend that they want a smaller one, often behave pathetically.

See also sundry comments by Holtz and Dondero.

By: paulie cannoli

paulie cannoli — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 20:18:31 +0000

http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/fairtax.htm

By: paulie cannoli

paulie cannoli — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 20:14:28 +0000

Most of those are articles from Mises saying that the FairTax is bad.

I agree. But it isnt as bad as the income tax, in my opinion.

You should read all of them, and the one from JPFO, etc., to see why it is actually worse.