50 Reasons to Support the Fair Tax

fly said:
hmmm. Very interesting.

Especially since the Fair Tax act and the 16th amendment repeal would have to be 2 seperate things...

couldn't you make the repealing of the 16th a rider on the bill for the fair tax act?
 
fly said:
When does it become a retail item? What if I setup a 'storefront' in an attempt to get items taxfree?

taxfree would equal wholesale, no? that would mean it was being sold to a vendor, not the end customer...again, I don't know the specifics of this very well so this could be completely wrong
 
Coqui said:
Hmm if this is the case, there's a definite con unless they can come up with school funding by another means.
Wait. Are the taxes you're speaking of federal taxes? If so, there would still be the same amount of federal funds available as last year. What am I missing?
 
why_ask_why said:
couldn't you make the repealing of the 16th a rider on the bill for the fair tax act?
No, because one affects the Constitution, and one doesn't. Does anyone know if there is an option to simply 'change' the wording of an Amendment?
 
why_ask_why said:
taxfree would equal wholesale, no? that would mean it was being sold to a vendor, not the end customer...again, I don't know the specifics of this very well so this could be completely wrong
Exactly. So I just set myself up as a wholesaler of everything and live taxfree!
 
why_ask_why said:
couldn't you make the repealing of the 16th a rider on the bill for the fair tax act?


Riders by definition aren't relevant to the legislation they're attached to, though. And of course, the 16th amendment is constitutional, meaning it wouldn't work that way anyway. But assuming it did, repealing the 16th amendment would of course be entirely relevant to the passage of a completely new tax structure, and getting everyone to agree on every word of every point would be next to impossible.
 
Sarcasmo said:
Riders by definition aren't relevant to the legislation they're attached to, though. And of course, the 16th amendment is constitutional, meaning it wouldn't work that way anyway. But assuming it did, repealing the 16th amendment would of course be entirely relevant to the passage of a completely new tax structure, and getting everyone to agree on every word of every point would be next to impossible.

they were able to accomplish this to create the 16th so logic would dictate we follow the examples they set in getting that done...one would think anyway
 
why_ask_why said:
they were able to accomplish this to create the 16th so logic would dictate we follow the examples they set in getting that done...one would think anyway

The 16th Amendment wasn't part of larger legislation though. It was enacted through a crisis rooted in national solvency. It took long enough to get it installed, too (something like 4 years to ratify). If it had accompanied something else there is no telling how many years of bickering would have ensued as the lawmakers and states ping-ponged back and forth between the different issues.
 
So, I'm somewhat lost on the final tally. Am I the only person against the Fair Tax thing still?
 
taeric said:
So, I'm somewhat lost on the final tally. Am I the only person against the Fair Tax thing still?
I am, I like playing the staus quo and fucking poor people.
 
Sarcasmo said:
I'm for it so far, but it needs to be ironed out a bit.

See... I just don't get that. Either you are for the Fair Tax or you are against it. There is no, I want it to be ironed out. That is just a shorter way of saying I'm against it, but I could be persuaded if they had a good thing.

In other words, if it was to be voted on right now. What would you vote?
 
taeric said:
See... I just don't get that. Either you are for the Fair Tax or you are against it. There is no, I want it to be ironed out. That is just a shorter way of saying I'm against it, but I could be persuaded if they had a good thing.

In other words, if it was to be voted on right now. What would you vote?


I'd vote yes. Fuck the repercussions.
 
taeric said:
See... I just don't get that. Either you are for the Fair Tax or you are against it. There is no, I want it to be ironed out. That is just a shorter way of saying I'm against it, but I could be persuaded if they had a good thing.

In other words, if it was to be voted on right now. What would you vote?
Have the finer details even been worked out yet?
 
taeric said:
It looks to me like they have no intention of working out the "finer" details.

Pretty much. It's been sitting out there since about 1995, and the same guy introduces it to each congressional session hoping to get it passed. I think enough people have said enough bad things about it to get it largely ignored. People like Dick Armey and various high-level economists and such. Repealing or reinventing our tax code is going to be like fighting the civil war again. A long, painful, arduous process that leaves many, many men sweating and trembling in its wake.
 
fly said:
Wait. Are the taxes you're speaking of federal taxes? If so, there would still be the same amount of federal funds available as last year. What am I missing?


The taxes one pays for on their house on a yearly basis (don't know if they are federal or state - I would assume state though) tend to go to schools. This is for public elementary, middle, and high schools.