Giuliani Opposed to the Fair Tax

First Romney, now Rudy...

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Rudy
• Giuliani
• Fair
• Tax
• Boortz

[svenp]

It wouldn't do anything to the housing industry. You are already paying 30+% when you buy a home. Ever hear of income taxes? How about the corporate tax cost that is embedded in building materials? You might want to read more about it, it actually makes a lot of sense.

[svenp]

This is incorrect. It's a tax that you are ALREADY paying. In the case of real estate, you pay the income taxes on the income to buy the real estate, the home is made of materials purchased with embedded corporate taxes... etc.

[MarkDouglasC]

No, revenue neutral means it would bring in the same tax receipts as before -- that the government would get the same money in under either plan. Thats what they mean by revenue neutral. Only, it wouldnt possibly bring in the same revenue as before. But you are right,I do apologize for calling you stupid.

[etsneroj]

What you're saying is the fair tax is bad economics. Fine. But, I'll accept your apology in advance for calling me stupid and saying you know what "revenue neutral" means. It is a term of art. "Revenue" in this context refers to our personal income, not total U.S. tax revenues. So, if a millionaire and a pauper both pay the same consumption tax rate, its "neutral" (i.e. unadjusted for income). That's what Dems object to. That's why the fair tax will never pass.

[MarkDouglasC]

Its not revenue neutral cause the revenue would drop dramatically. IF the revenue drops dramatically -- thats not neutral, is it?

Why will revenue drop? Cause sales will go in the toilet. If you have a 40% sales tax on new houses - new house sales will drop. Almost no one would buy new houses -- they would go for used houses. A 40% tax on cars -- decimates the auto industry. This is the most idiotic insane and stupid tax idea I have ever heard.

[etsneroj]

Maybe I am stupid. Or maybe you have a hard time expressing yourself. You say 23% is unrealistic to cover income, FICA, etc.(I agree), but you don't explain how that subjects different people to different rates. Whether everyone pays 1%, 23% or 95%, its revenue netural. No?

[unknownunknowns]

Look, I want the fair tax but not at that level. Before we even implement it incrementally, we must cut wasteful spending (if there is) so we don't get a 40-50% sales tax.

[MarkDouglasC]

Ten Trillon dollars -- are you a moron. What the hell do you think a 40% tax on the sale of new houses would do to the housing industry? What would a 40% sales tax do to car sales? Are you mental? Yes, we need a better tax system. But this sure isnt it. This FT is beyond stupid.

[MarkDouglasC]

I know what the FAIR tax is - you dont. Its a farce. I want to get a simple tax code -- I could write a four page tax code for individuals in language even you could understand. But the High National sales tax on new houses, on cars, on medical cost is insane. It would even charge the military the high sales tax, which is a whole other level of absurdity. This moronic tax would be a disaster. Its so stupid I hope you do it, to show how idiotic it is, and you folks are.

[MarkDouglasC]

Hey stupid, I know what reveune neutral means you moron, and I just showed your dumb ass how it cant be revenue neutral. Gesus you are stupid. It was supposedly revenue neutral when it was 23% -- to replace income tax only. But now it somehow replaces income tax AND FICA tax, AND inheritance tax AND cap gains tax. HOw in the hell can the same percentage cover twice as many taxes at far higher cost you moron.