Thread: FairTax and Trade

Originally Posted by Judy

You need to write more clearly then, because you're calling FairTax proponents socialists and progressives because of a method to exempt federal sales tax on necessities of life . . .

Talk about clarity, once again you make stuff up and misrepresent what I have posted and what the alleged fairtax does.


Contrary to you above assertion, that I’m calling “FairTax proponents socialists and progressives”, my words were more specific and directed at “Fifth Column socialist clowns who created the socialist friendly fairtax which offers free government cheese.”

Additionally, the alleged fairtax does not exempt the 23 percent sales tax on necessities of life as you falsely assert. The necessities of life are taxed just as other consumer articles are taxed under the alleged fairtax.

What the socialist friendly fairtax does is create a new socialist entitlement called the ”Family Consumption Allowance” LINK

“SEC. 301. Family consumption allowance.”

“Each qualified family shall be eligible to receive a sales tax rebate each month. The sales tax rebate shall be in an amount equal to the product of—
“(1) the rate of tax imposed by section 101, and
“(2) the monthly poverty level.”


As we can all see, the “family consumption allowance” is a monthly entitlement check sent to every qualified household which they may spend as they please. The monthly entitlement check’s alleged intention, as expressed at fairtax.org, is to prevent “an unfair burden on low-income-families” so they may purchase a rationed supply of “tax-free” purchases, presumably the necessities of life which will have a 23 percent tax added to their cost under the alleged fairtax.

Whether intentional or not, and I believe it is intentional, the family consumption allowance does make “low-income-families” dependent upon our federal government for monthly check to pay for a rationed supply of “tax-free” purchases which in turn encourages these families to vote for socialists who promise to increase the allowance.

We were warned against this very thing in the Federalist Papers? A POWER OVER A MAN's SUBSISTENCE AMOUNTS TO A POWER OVER HIS WILL ____ Hamilton, No. 79 Federalist Papers

In contrast to the alleged fairtax which does tax the necessities of life, our founder’s method to avoid oppressing the poor while taxing articles of consumption, was to exempt articles of necessity from taxation by a “judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions”. See FEDERALIST NO. 21


“There is no method of steering clear of this inconvenience, but by authorizing the national government to raise its own revenues in its own way. Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. If inequalities should arise in some States from duties on particular objects, these will, in all probability, be counter balanced by proportional inequalities in other States, from the duties on other objects. In the course of time and things, an equilibrium, as far as it is attainable in so complicated a subject, will be established everywhere. Or, if inequalities should still exist, they would neither be so great in their degree, so uniform in their operation, nor so odious in their appearance, as those which would necessarily spring from quotas, upon any scale that can possibly be devised.


It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four .'' If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.”





For confirmation on how our founders intended to tax consumption here is a link to our countries first revenue raising act An Act for laying a Duty on Goods, Wares and Merchandise imported into the United States. Note how each article is selected and a specific amount of tax is laid upon the article selected.



Now, Judy, instead of obfuscating, misdirecting and employing a number of stupid debating tricks, and rambling on and on as you did in your last post, how about discussing the obvious consequences attached to the “family consumption allowance”, which all thinking people would agree creates a dangerous voting block dependent upon government for a monthly subsistence check.

JWK


A nation of people made dependent upon government for their subsistence, is a nation doomed to being enslaved by the iron fist which feeds them.

Originally Posted by johnwk

Talk about clarity, once again you make stuff up and misrepresent what I have posted and what the alleged fairtax does.


Contrary to you above assertion, that I’m calling “FairTax proponents socialists and progressives”, my words were more specific and directed at “Fifth Column socialist clowns who created the socialist friendly fairtax which offers free government cheese.”

Additionally, the alleged fairtax does not exempt the 23 percent sales tax on necessities of life as you falsely assert. The necessities of life are taxed just as other consumer articles are taxed under the alleged fairtax.

What the socialist friendly fairtax does is create a new socialist entitlement called the ”Family Consumption Allowance” LINK

“SEC. 301. Family consumption allowance.”

“Each qualified family shall be eligible to receive a sales tax rebate each month. The sales tax rebate shall be in an amount equal to the product of—
“(1) the rate of tax imposed by section 101, and
“(2) the monthly poverty level.”


As we can all see, the “family consumption allowance” is a monthly entitlement check sent to every qualified household which they may spend as they please. The monthly entitlement check’s alleged intention, as expressed at fairtax.org, is to prevent “an unfair burden on low-income-families” so they may purchase a rationed supply of “tax-free” purchases, presumably the necessities of life which will have a 23 percent tax added to their cost under the alleged fairtax.

Whether intentional or not, and I believe it is intentional, the family consumption allowance does make “low-income-families” dependent upon our federal government for monthly check to pay for a rationed supply of “tax-free” purchases which in turn encourages these families to vote for socialists who promise to increase the allowance.

We were warned against this very thing in the Federalist Papers? A POWER OVER A MAN's SUBSISTENCE AMOUNTS TO A POWER OVER HIS WILL ____ Hamilton, No. 79 Federalist Papers

In contrast to the alleged fairtax which does tax the necessities of life, our founder’s method to avoid oppressing the poor while taxing articles of consumption, was to exempt articles of necessity from taxation by a “judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions”. See FEDERALIST NO. 21


“There is no method of steering clear of this inconvenience, but by authorizing the national government to raise its own revenues in its own way. Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. If inequalities should arise in some States from duties on particular objects, these will, in all probability, be counter balanced by proportional inequalities in other States, from the duties on other objects. In the course of time and things, an equilibrium, as far as it is attainable in so complicated a subject, will be established everywhere. Or, if inequalities should still exist, they would neither be so great in their degree, so uniform in their operation, nor so odious in their appearance, as those which would necessarily spring from quotas, upon any scale that can possibly be devised.


It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four .'' If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.”





For confirmation on how our founders intended to tax consumption here is a link to our countries first revenue raising act An Act for laying a Duty on Goods, Wares and Merchandise imported into the United States. Note how each article is selected and a specific amount of tax is laid upon the article selected.



Now, Judy, instead of obfuscating, misdirecting and employing a number of stupid debating tricks, and rambling on and on as you did in your last post, how about discussing the obvious consequences attached to the “family consumption allowance”, which all thinking people would agree creates a dangerous voting block dependent upon government for a monthly subsistence check.

JWK


A nation of people made dependent upon government for their subsistence, is a nation doomed to being enslaved by the iron fist which feeds them.

Yes, that's right, so Americans can buy a ration of goods and services up to the poverty line tax free. That's exactly what the Rebate does, the same as the standard deduction and personal deduction and dependent deductions on the income tax, so you can earn up to a certain amount under the income tax, tax free. It's the same thing. I never hear you whine about that. You just love the income tax, the only difference is you want to pay it through a state instead of the federal government. Funny!!


As I've said, I personally don't care about the Rebate, I'm fine with it either way, with it or without it. However, I love the fact that it distinguishes between Americans and illegal aliens, taxing them more without a Rebate, where Americans pay less because they can receive the Rebate. It puts the illegal aliens at a comparative disadvantage. That's the only reason I would want to keep it. Maybe when we get rid of all the illegal aliens, we could remove the Rebate and reduce the FairTax rate.

Just checked my emails and there was an alert from the FairTax organization about the FairTax and Trade written by the Chairman. Our thread has had so many views because of so many posts that I guess a FairTax supporter saw it and sent it in and the Chairman decided to write a article about it. His article is June 15 and I started our thread on June 9th!!

You just never know who is viewing our threads and posts!!

I hope someone from the White House sees our thread and tells our President Trump, "hey, Judy is on to something here"!! Yes, Mr. President I'm definitely on to something HUUUGE here ... FAIRTAX AND TRADE .... balances the trade deficits without any fuss or muss, trade wars, tariff wars, international disputes, WTO or trade agreements. Easy as sin and simple as pie.

FAIRTAX NOW!!

HR 25 in the US House of Representatives for .... 19 years. Time for Action!!!

jtdc wrote:

Did you graduate high school?

Yes, I did. I also graduated college.

jtdc wrote:

You must have been a cheerleader!

Yes, I was. I was also Student Body President.

Originally Posted by Judy

Yes, I did. I also graduated college.

That explains it. You have been fully indoctrinated!

Originally Posted by Judy

Just checked my emails and there was an alert from the FairTax organization about the FairTax and Trade written by the Chairman. Our thread has had so many views because of so many posts that I guess a FairTax supporter saw it and sent it in and the Chairman decided to write a article about it. His article is June 15 and I started our thread on June 9th!!

You just never know who is viewing our threads and posts!!

Well, at least someone agrees with you, I guess! Maybe John and I will change their minds!

Maybe, but I don't think so.

I've been thinking about the 1 year conversion time in the FairTax bill and how that hurts incumbents in the midterms. The FairTax has been set up to convert, 1 full calendar year following the year of passage which is for tax purposes 2 years. That was probably needed in 1999, because of the time to train and give companies time to adjust. But today with computers, there's no reason for that 2 year delay, so they should cut that down to 60 days so it implements more quickly after passage. That way incumbents who fought for the FairTax are in office when taxpayers start enjoying the FairTax.

You made a post the other day that I didn't address so I'll take the time to address it now:

jtdc wrote:

What a fantasy! So you believe that illegal aliens looking to make thousands of dollars per month won't come because they will have to pay $305 more per month than legal persons?

It's $305 if they have 1 child, it's only $226 a month per adult if they don't have any children.

You claim the Rebate is some Communist "redistribution" scheme to make Americans dependent on a welfare state they don't pay for, yet when it comes to excluding illegal aliens it's suddenly insignificant, so which is it? An insignificant simple means of excluding a ration of necessities from federal sales tax for citizens and legal residents which most Americans are used to under the income tax exclusions for the same purpose, or the Great Ball of Communist Fire you claim it is being pushed by college "indoctrinated" Republicans?

Link to Six Million Dollar Man's article about the death threats on US Ambassador to Canada over trade tariffs.

https://www.alipac.us/f19/trump-tari...0/#post1602504

The FairTax taxes all foreign imports sold in the US at the final point of sale at 23%.

Last year in 2017 we imported $2.9 trillion worth of goods and services virtually tariff and tax free.

https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade...ical/gands.pdf

$2.9 trillion x 23% = $667 billion in FairTaxes before offsets for products and services that end up in exports which are exempt from the FairTax. Probably 20 to 25% would be excluded due to export exemption, so approximately $440 to $460 billion of FairTaxes would be collected on imports that end up in the products and services sold in the United States at the final point of sale to consumers and funds both Social Security Administration (8.09%) and General Revenue Fund (14.91%).

The way to balance our trade deficits is with the FairTax because it does it in due course, automatically, without confrontation, without international disputes, without trade agreements, without trade wars over tariffs, without WTO lawsuits or threats of violence from Angry Unfair Traders, it just does it by function of domestic FairTax law and math.

People who don't understand this fabulous feature of the FairTax, don't understand the FairTax yet.

Originally Posted by Judy

Link to Six Million Dollar Man's article about the death threats on US Ambassador to Canada over trade tariffs.

Virtually nothing to do with the FairTax!

Originally Posted by Judy

The FairTax taxes all foreign imports sold in the US at the final point of sale at 23%.

Correct. But the FairTax, as you have claimed, does not do away with tariff or excise taxes. Therefore, it has nothing to do with foreign trade!

Originally Posted by Judy

The way to balance our trade deficits is with the FairTax

WRONG! IT IS CONGRESS BALANCING THE BUDGET!