Has Palin taken a stand for or against the Fair Tax?

Additional Details
Please make sure you are in full understanding of the fair tax when you post your reply if you choose to post anything but a yes or no answer. Do not post what you think the fair tax is or isn't about as common misunderstandings or misinformations of the fair tax shouldn't be shared under this question.

Palin has not taken any stand about taxes to date.

--------------------------------------...

Chief ā€“it would appear you should invest in something a little better than your ā€self educationā€¯ as your ignorance is showing.

You clearly are of the misguided assumption (that even Boritz and Faitax.org no longer proclaim) that removing embedded taxes equates to exactly the same amount of tax going back on with the NST to produce a net zero change in the cost of goods. This is among the most ridiculous claims of the whole Fair Tax proposal. All these ā€embedded taxesā€¯ are going to be collected with a brand new retail taxā€¦but ALSO personal income taxes are now going to be added into the sales tax too. If your brain canā€™t handle even basic math, you really ought to get some schooling because putting those taxes right back on top of the cost of good but now calling it a NST will not decrease the net cost.

The whole argument about used good having no tax is such a hypocritical viewpoint. If only new good are going to be officially taxed, than that merely means used good will now have embedded taxes. Either you drop the embedded tax argument altogether or you accept that the NST will be passed down into the costs of used good just the way corporate taxes are now passed onto all goods. You are running the classic foolish argument of trying to have it both ways.

Any educated person with common sense would know that wealthy people do not spend all of their income on goods. No one is arguing that the wealthy will still buy more good and still pay more actual taxes than the poor under the Fair Tax Proposal, but only viewing it this way is asinine. Compared to how much the wealthy pay today, they will be paying significantly less having to only pay on new goods as oppose to all earned income.

Maybe next time you should save your condescension for a topic you can actually speak intelligently about.

*EDIT*
Tyler ā€“ you are making some incorrect assumptions. I have not said I am for or against the Fair Tax, I have only clearly expressed that I am against people making ridiculously false claims about the Fair Tax and doing so condescendingly.

The Fair Tax has a lot of good things, and a lot of issues. The National Tax Association has already laid out the main reasons why this bill has not progressed any further ā€“ mostly heavily the issue of implementation. As far as the wealthy paying less tax, I would actually have no issue with that; however, I do take issue with naĆÆve or unintelligent people buying into and/or expressing the notion that it would be the opposite.

Critical Thinking includes looking at both sides of the issue, not merely seeking only facts and statistics that support your own view.

No.

The Fairtax has never made it out of committee in the House for one simple reason: It is not a good bill.

The Fairtax died with Huckabee's campaign.

Even if McCain and Palin support the Fairtax and in the unlikely event of their victory, they will have to contend with a Democratic Congress.

Hopefully not. The grossly mis-named "Fair Tax" is nothing more than a shameless money grab for the ultra wealthy who would benefit significantly from it, at the expense of the poor and middle class. The current administration gave away the store to the wealthy and shattered the economy in the process. The Fair Tax would collapse it completely.

If you think that a sudden 30% increase in the price of EVERYTHING would be intelligent, you really are missing the point!

Marcello,

It's clear that you believe that the current tax system exists for the purpose of wealth redistribution. That's fine, but the FairTax would exist under the assumption that taxes are for the purpose of funding the federal government-- not punishing people who happen to make a lot of money. Additionally, wealthy people tend to make money not on wages, so guess what? They tend not to pay payroll taxes or personal income tax, which are the largest taxes most people pay. They collect dividends and realized capital gains, which are taxed at a much lower rate than wages would be. The FairTax would bring them into the same tax rate as everyone else, and since they tend to buy more stuff, they would pay a heck of a lot more tax than regular people. The current income tax system punishes hard working people with wages and rewards people who make their money without wages.

If you apply critical thinking and analyze all of the facts, the FairTax makes a lot of sense.

As far as Palin's position on the FairTax, I hope she addresses the issue in the near future but I don't believe she has thus far. She did cut government waste in Alaska and seems to favor transparency in taxation, so it seems like a good fit.

Bostonianinmo - Obviously you know nothing about the Fair Tax. Please do your research. Price of goods would not go up 30% and besides the 30% you refer to is the exlusive rate and does not compare apples to apples with the inclusive income and payroll tax rates. Compare apples to apples and convert them to exclusive rates, 15% income tax and 15.3% p/r tax, you get 43%. 25% income tax and 15.3% p/r tax you get 66%.

No, and will without doubt, root for whatever John McCain tells her too.

Not sure... wouldn't it be great if she supported it though? I can't wait for the day when the IRS puts up 'out of business' signs and makes our lives easier.

I believe that if she was given the correct information on the Fair Tax and was given the opportunity she would educate herself and be all for it.

What people do not give her credit for is that she is an everyday American. She has been poor, she has come up through the middle class and now she wears a white collar. With that white collar of hers still contains the sweat and hard work that it took to get that collar on. Her common sense would tell her "Yes" and she would see that all of the tax that is currently embedded in the everyday consumed products would disappear. At that point the 23% increase on "NEW" products would result to no increase at all, paying no different cost then before. What about no tax on used goods don't the poor usually purchase used goods? WOW poor paying no tax, what a concept.

Who else would have a better understanding about a rebate than Palin? As Governor she gave a rebate to all of the Alaskan citizens from the high energy costs, this rebate helped the lower class families afford the energy. So tell me why wouldn't she be for a pre-bate to supplement the cost of everyday necessities to help the lower class citizens.

An educated person with common sense would remember that wealthier people have to have the brand new items (i.e. Lexus or 100 Karat watch) would have to pay the tax. If you buy used you pay no tax you buy new you pay 23% taxes. You don't spend you don't pay taxes, you spend more than you have you pay a lot of taxes.

Taxes become a choice not a burden with the Fair Tax.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment:

Archive: Forum -Forum -Finance - Links - 1 - 2 - RSS - All RSS Feeds
The Causes and the Results. 0.014
Copyright (c) 2011 Financial Crisis Tuesday, May 29, 2012 - Terms of use - Privacy Policy