Mr. Neighbors, thank you for writing. I fear, from your comments, that you missed my point. Government is all about social engineering. You can either use tax incentives to do it or you can have actual taxes collected and government expenditure to do the same thing. The answer is not whether you want to live with social engineering. The vast majority of your fellow citizens have weighed in on that issue. They do (want social engineering - another word for government). The question is how you are going to fund it? Do you want direct expenditure from direct taxes or do you want to put in incentives so that government is taken out of the business of providing direct service? Neither is an answer that, while it may satisfy purists, won't actually be implemented.
While we are asking either or questions, I have a few:
Would you prefer that your mortgage be financed in an operation you have a stake in, such as a credit union or an employee-owned company, or through securitization through Fannie Mae or a Real Estate Investment Trust?
Would you rather have your portfolio and your workplace security based on self-ownership of your employer or managed by financial specialists who will always back management, even if it means your job is outsourced for pennies on the dollar? (or would you rather pay Social Secuirty instead?)
Who do you want running programs for education, the poor or the mentally ill/addicted, government bureaucrats and jailers or faith based institutions who you designate. Not paying at all is not really an option - especially if you view these as mandatory services rather than charity (kind of like paying health insurance even when you are not sick).
It's time we quit saying what we are against and instead saying how we would REPLACE that status quo in a wait that might seem reasonable to the average potential voter.
As to poverty programs, the question is not just about what you are taxed but how much money you have? A family of four cannot really live on $27,000 per year in much of the country (in terms of population centers, not real estate). What is that family actually getting including their FAIR Tax rebate and why do you want to have them deal with the government at all except to verify the tax credit paid to them by their employer?
Correct me if I am wrong, but how is facing a perjury trap for filing a Fair Tax Rebate fraudulently different than facing the same perjury trap for filing ones 1040 fraudulently? (The answer is its not). Also, the numbers don't add up. The effective tax rate is closer for the slightly below average taxpayer to more like 24% and will be up to about 30% for those just above the average. This is federal only, by the way.
It is an old saw that business don't pay taxes. That depends on perspective. The taxes workers pay can be considered an element of product cost rather than personal expense - especially given the current regimine of payroll and income taxation. You never really see the money - it is an overhead item for the business that the consumer eventually pays. All income and payroll taxes can essentially be seen as a form of hidden consumption tax with a bit of social engineering thrown in. If you look at it as a cost analyst rather than as a taxpayer with resentments against payroll deductions it is fairly clear. Part of the cost of employing people or yourself is such overhead. The calculation of what people will actually net (on average) is a real consideration in the hiring and compensation process.
The question is, how complicated do you want this process to be for the average person. What I propose means that the average person will fill out and submit no forms or rebate applications to the government - although his H.R. department might. It sounds like billions of hours will be saved my way. Not so much with the Fair Tax.
Michael Bindner
Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /var/www/html/fr/freeliberal.com/textpattern/lib/constants.php on line 136