Shiva_TD

Basically all you are saying is that our government is spending too (*)(*)(*)(*) much money. We are already paying these taxes but many of us are not aware of it. The consumption tax makes the actual taxes being paid transparent. If, as you say, actual taxation would require a 36% rate don't you believe that the People should know that's what they are paying?

Your below analysis is beyond Flawed.

If the cost of everything is reduced 20%, that they'll have to Raise the Fairtax 20% to be Revenue Neutral.

Which will push the stated rate from the misleading "23% Incusive" which is Really 30% the way everyone understands and pays taxes now, to 36%.

Further, even the stated 23/30% has been independently scored in the mid 50's% range. http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010523

(20% more IF you reduce the cost of products)

I'm realitively new to this forum (coming from a defunct forum) and only post on thread of interest when inspired to do so.

As I have noted, I am opposed to some of the specifics presented by FairTax.org but endorse the principles of a consumption tax with prebates. Please note that prebates are not income dependent. A threshold is established (FairTax.org proposes the poverty level) and the comsumption tax based upon this threshold would be sent to everyone. For example, if the threshold was established at $10K and there was a 20% consumption tax then individuals would receive $2,000 in prebates annually. The formula changes for families but the principle remains the same. And everyone, rich and poor, receives exactly the same amount of prebate. All the individual has to do is register establishing citizenship or legal residence to qualify.

The consumption tax eliminates embedded taxes on products. To explain embedded taxes I will provide the following example. A farmer grows wheat and pay 15.2% FICA taxes on their income. That tax is included in the cost of their product which goes to the mill. The mill pays 7.6% FICA taxes on the wages of labor and that tax is included in the cost of flour to the baker. The baker pays 7.6% FICA taxes on the wages of labor and passes that cost on to the market. The market pays 7.6 FICA taxes on their labor and passes that onto the consumer in the cost of a loaf of bread. When you add this up and include the accounting costs related to it economists have determined that over 20% of the cost of a product is related to embedded taxes.

A consumption tax is NOT collected on exported items and therefore the cost of products exported can be reduced by 20% which would provide a huge benefit to American products internationally increasing demand which in turn creates an equal demand for labor in the United States.

The 20% reduction in the cost of products also benefits Americans because it overwhelmingly offsets the estimated 23% tax consumption tax rate that has been calculated to provide all of the revenues necessary to fund all of our government's current needs (revenue neutral) when the fact that everyone would receive 100% of their paycheck including the 7.6% FICA taxes that they pay on the first $90K+ of income everyone experiences a net gain especially the poor and middle class.

It also eliminates political corruption related to the tax codes. A consumption tax only has two criteria that the politicians can adjust. The tax rate itself (because every new product and service is taxed without exception) or the threshold for the prebates. Special interests cannot affect a consumption tax whereas today we see tax breaks being provided to special interest groups all of the time. Those tax breaks are buried in thousands of pages of tax codes that no one understands. A consumption tax does not require thousands of pages to accommodate special interests. It's simple and straight forward makiing it almost impossible to corrupt.

I have addressed them in the Forum.
I was hoping perhaps to get a more candid answer here.

I'M the one who posts Daily in the M-E section, NOT you.

On Fairtax I have posted here for many moons as well.
the current string just the latest of Many many (use search).

FT:
So the system of giving Millions of people based on income 'prebates' (what Huge beaurocracy is going to administer and check these incomes?) and then taking it back! through a consumption tax is simpler to you?
And you want to see NON-transparent?
Just put in a high consumption tax like 50% and the Economy VANISHES buddy.
You can't be serious.
There's never been an incentive like that margin except for Drugs!
LOL
Also NO answer on who pays More/Less.

Israel:
your Uncontextualized ANECDOTES don't even come close to making the case for 'Tyranny'.
Israel is in a War in which the other side Intentionally Uses it's civilian population as cover.
There are no 'regulars' in Hamas, No Military bases, etc.
Thus NO answer to my question.

So to my main question on each of the above issues?
NO Answer.

Why don't you address this issues in the Forum? Just curious.

You raise two questions so I will tackle each one.

Taxes - I do not expect to pay less in taxes under a consumption tax as opposed to the current income tax system. It isn't about paying less taxes. Where I will save is in the related expenses of accounting, tax preparation and time/hassle involved with income taxes. Where I see the greatest advantage is that taxation becomes transparent. Right now the tax laws are so complex that even the IRS is wrong in answering taxpayer questions 40% of the time (from what I understand).

Israel - Do I really need to cite the number of instances where Isreal has fired rockets or artillary into refugee camps? Or provide links to killings like the 9 year old Palestinian buy killed by the IDF while collecting wild bird eggs? Or the amublence driver killed by the IDF after responding to a call? I mean I can do it but I assume that you already know about all of these. What I will not accept is a belief that a response to terrorism ever requires a tyrannical response from government.

As for the US I believe the last estimate I had was that the US was responsible for the deaths of over 5 million innocent people since WW II. That is certainly inexcusable tryanny as well of course tyranny is inexcusable regardless of how many people are actually murdered by government. Even the death of one innocent person is inexcusable IMHO.

But just remember, I don't excuse terrorists either. I can cite the reasons cited for acts of terrorism, just like we can cite the reasons behind tyrannical actions, but those reasons never justify the acts of either terrorism or tyranny.

BTW, you're also off the deep end on Fairtax.

You won't answer that it doesn't add up to revenue neutrality it claims.

Nor on the mix.
If you pay less, someone pays more.
It's THAT simple. NOT your simple.

If you see yourself paying less.. who do you even imagine pays more to make up for it?
People with large medical bills? 'spendthrifts' with 20K income?
It's clearly Rich/Very Rich people Who get a huge windfall as they don't pay nearly as high a percent of their income under the Fairtax as poor do. If nothing else surely you understand it regressive. (???)
Fairytax was created by two Texas Billionaires. Hmmm.

[[[ ie at the top:
If you earn a billion let's say- your current Income tax is 350 Million. Under FT it drops to 30% of what you spend.
Probably 30% of 50 mil.. or 15 million.
A Tax cut of $335 Million.
So a million people have to pay $335 more?
Or 100,000 people $3350 more to pay for this ONE single tax cut alone.]]]]

It's a zero-sum-game.. and if it isn't or revenue neutral/falls (which is likely because of its inhibition to spend and the Huge Black market it will create) they'll have to raise even the phony stated rate.

So who are the winners and losers under this Scam in Yo mind?

Dylan, Talkin WWIII Blues

"..Well, the doctor interrupted me just about then,
Sayin, "Hey I've been havin' the same old dreams,
But mine was a little different you see.
I dreamt that the only person left after the war was me.
I didn't see you around."

Well, now time passed and now it seems
Everybody's having them dreams.
Everybody sees themselves walkin' around with no one else.
Half of the people can be part right all of the time,
Some of the people can be all right part of the time.
But all the people can't be all right all the time
I think Abraham Lincoln said that...."

AS I said I do not excuse Terrorist activities and Zionism, like all other movements had a share of them.
This does NOT effect the Legitmate national movement of the Jewish People.
'zionism is as legimate as the movement of Every other group including the made up Arab sub-group 'palestinians'.
All national movements have had some violence in their creation.
Arabs are going for state #23. (and including Iraq, created by Britain will nilly, screwing the Kurds).

"Tyrannical"? You make the charge but don't nearly back it up.

Israel is not a Tyrannical state.
Israel is the Country where people of EVERY Race, Religion, Gender (male female gay) Worship, VOTE, and walk the streets without fear. UNLIKE ALL It's neighbors

Israel is in a POLITICAL dispute (since 3 arab attempts to wipe it out) with a subgroup of Arabs, indeed even a subgroup of 'Palestinians'; the ones that Don't live in Israel nor Jordan.

How many 'Palestinians' do you even Allege were killed by this 'Tyrannical state' BEFORE the palestinian-Started intifada/War?
How many people did our 'tyrannical' country kill in the last 60 years since WWII?

What you oppose is self-defense renamed by you 'tyranny'.

You evade the question, were the Irgun and Haganah terrorist organizations? Did they or did they not engage in terrorist activities?

One can also question the authority of Britian in promising a Jewish homeland after WW I when 95% of the population in Palestine was Arab at the time of the accord?

And I would investigate a little bit more before I accuse someone of being anti-semitc. I happen to be opposed to all forms of tyranny and terrorism. Israel has been a tyrannical state. The killing of innocent Palestinians by Israel is well documented from the murder of children to the targeting of refugee camps. Yes, I am also opposed to Palestinian terrorist attacks because I apply the simple rule that all tyranny and all terrorism is wrong. I am opposed to the US support for any tyrannical regime, including Saudi Arabia, and any organization that engages in terrorism from the Contras in the 1980's to recent allegations of CIA support of the PKK in Kurdish Iraq. I oppose the US interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan as I see them to be tyrannical just as I oppose terrorist acts by al Qaeda.

So yes, I am opposed to the tryannical actions of Israel as well as the terrorist actions of Hamas. My criteria is simple, tyranny and terrorism are wrong regardless of the source.

The 'Forefront' of Zionism was Herzl and other European Jews.

Israel was Promised a State by The British and [UN Predecessor] League of Nations before anyone heard of Haganah.

After WWII, 'Israel' was a Foregone Conclusion, as the remaining territory had to be divided up between the Resident Jews and 'Palestinians'. That is the leftover Palestinians who didn't get 77% of the British mandate 'Jordan'.

One doesn't excuse Terrorist actions, but Britain had prevented Jews from emigrating, sending ships with Jews back to Europe to a Terrible fate.
What does one call that?

The 'King David Hotel' was British Military Headquarters, Not The Plaza in NY not JUST 'a Hotel' as you and others try to intimate.
Warnings were given before the bomb went off to Clear out.

If you're really interested in the action and background of the inciden/groups you mention and using it as anything but Slander.....

http://www.etzel.org.il/english/ac10.htm

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/King_David.html

Would you deny that the Irgun and Haganah were terrorist organizations or that they were the forefront of the Zionist movement to Palestine?

I know the History Well.
Zionism was started by Theodore Herzl in the late 19th Century seeking a refuge for Jews from Persecution.
There were A Few unfortunate characters in the movement or in ANY movement.
This Doesn't Discredit the movement.

The "Average Jew" Does support Israel and it creation, if not all the Million incidents in it's History.
In fact, as I said, probably 97% of Jews do.

Your attempt to demonize unfairly all 'zionists' and 'zionism' as "Terrorists and murderers" is anti-semitc.
Period.

I suggest you google the bombing of the King David Hotel if you want to know who the Zionists really are. The were represented by such organizations as the Irgun and Haganah which were terrorist organizations. And while someone can paint a broad picture that includes all Jews that supported the eviction of the native population of Palestine in the mid 20th century in order to form the Jewish state of Israel as Zionists that is not the context in which has traditionally been used. The Zionsts have traditionally been those that persecuted, murdered, and committed acts of terrorism to achieve this goal and not those that are opposed to such actions. To say that the average Jew would support terrorism and murder, which the extreme Zionist movement engaged upon, is a gross insult to the average Jew.

What "discussion with me". You post No Facts whatsover ;^)
You don't even know what a zionist is. Or rather you choose to make it code for "Bad Jew" instead of it's Real meaning.

Oh and about that [disingenuous] word "regime":

http://www.AlArabiya.net/views/2008/08/18/55037.html

Israel returns 99%!
Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed
August 18, 2008

"....The offer does not end here, as Israel is to compensate the Palestinians with 5.5% of “its land”. That means giving the Palestinian state 98.5%. Israel will also give the Palestinians a land passage linking the Gaza Strip to the West Bank, a passage without checkpoints that would still be owned by Israel. Israel, practically, offers some 100%...."

So it's The above 'regime' he wants to get rid of?

You don't know what you're talking about and discussing this with you is a waste of my time.

'zionist' is someone who supports the Existence Of ISRAEL as a home for the Jews.
Any Israeli government would be 'zionists' and EVERY one has been, of course.
Virtually All Israeli Jews, except for some wacko groups like Neturei Karta, are 'Zionists'.. as are virtually all American Jews and in fact, most Americans.
Probably 97% of Jews are 'zionists'.
If you 'just' want to get rid of 97% of Jews (& keep a small Token hostage population) you're still an anti-semite and a huge Threat to Israel.
Israel IS the fulfillment of 'Zionism'.
UNlike Islamism which seeks a Worldwide Ummah/Caliphate.

There's also no mistaking ahmadinJihad's statements about "this stain of disgrace" being eliminated, being "Attainable very soon"...
Any Political change would NOT be "Attainable" "Very Soon", but Nukes Would.
Thus it was originally the Official Iranian News Agency (IRNA) which used the euphemism 'wiped off the map'.

And the Israeli goverment/S is NOT like Islamic terrorists/fundamentalists.
The Israeli goverment withdrew from Gaza REMOVING fundamentalists, and will probably do so to some lesser extent in the West Bank.

You are perverting/demonizing Zionism for the same purpose as many people do. And that's probably coercing your wife's opinion as well.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ahmadinjehad:

"They [ask]: 'Is it possible for us to witness a world without America and Zionism?' But you had best know that this slogan and this goal are attainable, and surely can be achieved.
[[[...]]] "'When the dear Imam [Khomeini] said that [the Shah's] regime must go, and that we demand a world without dependent governments, many people who claimed to have political and other knowledge [asked], 'Is it possible [that the Shah's regime can be toppled]?' That day, when Imam [Khomeini] began his movement, all the powers supported [the Shah's] corrupt regime [[[...]]] and said it was not possible. However, our nation stood firm, and by now we have, for 27 years, been living without a government dependent on America. Imam [Khomeni] said: 'The rule of the East [U.S.S.R.] and of the West [U.S.] should be ended.' But the weak people who saw only the tiny world near them did not believe it. Nobody believed that we would one day witness the collapse of the Eastern Imperialism [i.e. the U.S.S.R], and said it was an iron regime. But in our short lifetime we have witnessed how this regime collapsed in such a way that we must look for it in libraries, and we can find no literature about it. Imam [Khomeini] said that Saddam [Hussein] must go, and that he would be humiliated in a way that was unprecedented. And what do you see today? A man who, 10 years ago, spoke as proudly as if he would live for eternity is today chained by the feet, and is now being tried in his own country [[[...]]]
Imam [Khomeini] said:
'This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be Eliminated from the pages of history.' This sentence is very Wise.
The issue of Palestine is NOT an issue on which we can Compromise.
Is it possible that an [Islamic] front allows another front [i.e. country] to arise in its [own] heart? This means defeat, and he who accepts the EXISTENCE of this regime [i.e. Israel] in fact signs the Defeat of the Islamic world. In his battle against the World of Arrogance, our dear Imam [Khomeini] set the regime occupying Qods[Jerusalem]as the target of his fight. I do not doubt that the new wave which has begun in our dear Palestine and which today we are also witnessing in the Islamic world is a wave of morality which has spread all over the Islamic world.
Very soon, this stain of disgrace [i.e. Israel] will vanish from the center of the Islamic world - and this is attainable."
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - --
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

What does he mean that Islam/Iran Cannot accept Israel or compromise with it, and that:
""Very soon, this stain of disgrace [i.e. Israel] will vanish from the center of the Islamic world - and this is attainable.""

What would make it "Attainable to get rid of this Stain of Disgrace" "Very Soon"? EXCEPT for Nukes?

Surely "Very soon" the Arabs/Iranians aren't going to get a conventional advantage over Israel.

So what could he Possible mean by "attainable" "Very Soon"?

Coupled with his many stated theme of not giving up enrichment and in fact, accelerating it-- it doesn't take a genius to add 1+1.
-