Mike Lowry
-
The Basics
-
Mike on Patch
-
More Stuff
Comments
-
On the article Question of the Week: Is Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act Unconstitutional?
-
On the Blog Post Fair Tax: The Myths of Inequality
Mike Lowry
9:01 am on Monday, February 11, 2013
While I would certainly admit to not being a VAT expert, I know that it imposes huge administrative costs for the multi-layer record keeping, and worst, everywhere it has been implemented it is used as a mode for steadily increasing the tax burden in piecemeal fashion without any public vote.
You seem to not clearly understand how corporations price their goods and services. Taxes don't "average 22% of business costs", they average 22% of product prices. You are using liberal economics to avoid the fiscal realities of income taxation.
The real beauty of the Fair Tax is that it makes the entire tax burden visible to everyone, eliminating the "free lunch" perception of income tax withholding.
-
On the article Does Washington Have a Spending Problem or a Revenue Problem?
Mike Lowry
8:54 am on Wednesday, December 12, 2012
ReplyWe definitely have a spending problem, and have had it for 60 years. Study Calvin Coolidge for the right way to fix it. When faced with recession he cut the government in half and triggered a huge boom which only ended when Congress got greedy and started hiking taxes again.
As for what we need to cut, we should eliminate all government activities not specifically authorized by the Constitution. The federal government has no business being in the health care business, or the retirement business or the housing business or the education business or the transportation business (with the singular exception of the Interstate system). These are all the purview of the states (see Amendments, Tenth).
We are being boiled like a frog, with ever-increasing "benefits" that are strangling our freedoms and making us into a dependent society.
-
On the Blog Post Fair Tax: The Myths of Inequality
Mike Lowry
12:52 pm on Saturday, October 27, 2012
Frank, you seem to be stuck on insultin people. I have never said anything about "bums and deadbeats". Those are your words.
You apparently haven't read the post above, showing the real distribution of consumption and therefore the projected distribution of tax burden. Like most liberals you leap to your own wished-for conclusion in spite of the facts and try to project insults onto everyone else.
There is no scam, and the Fair Tax is NOT regressive. Most of the garbage is contained in your posts.
-
On the Blog Post Fair Tax: The Myths of Inequality
Mike Lowry
10:12 am on Saturday, October 27, 2012
Rude and tasteless comments detract from your point.
Most of us don't believe 47% of the population should pay no tax. It's very dangerous for our freedoms to have that many dependencies.
-
On the Blog Post Fair Tax: The Myths of Inequality
Mike Lowry
10:10 am on Saturday, October 27, 2012
As things are now our exporters' goods carry BOTH the embedded tax from the US and the import VAT in the purchasing country.
-
On the Blog Post Fair Tax: The Myths of Inequality
Mike Lowry
1:22 pm on Friday, October 26, 2012
ReplyThe comments on this thread are bringing out the lack of education on the issue.
1. It is not a flat tax. The flat tax leaves in place the entire income tax structure, which will still be used for granting favors and trying to manipulate behavior.
2. It is far superior to a VAT. A VAT hides the majority of the tax burden in the price of the final product. Wherever implemented it has been used to raise taxes in stealth mode. Conversely, the Fair Tax makes the entire burden of government visible at point of sale. Exports are tax-free, making US products 22% more competitive in world markets.
3. BStein's comment above indicates that he is not aware that all products currently carry an average of 22% embedded tax, covering all of the income and other taxes the producers and distributors paid in making and delivering the products. Those embedded taxes will very rapidly be taken out of the products due to competitive pressure, offsetting the point-of-sale consumption tax. After the initial 6-months-to-a-year the resulting prices should be roughly the same.
4. As for "killing the economy", I would refer you to the Kotlikoff study of its potential impacts at http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/FairTax-NTJ-Final-042407.pdf, which predicts that "....the FairTax will precipitate a very major increase in the U.S. capital stock...prevent what would otherwise be a doubling to the highly regressive payroll tax..."
-
On the article Patch Is Collecting Questions for Obama and Romney During the Next Presidential Debate
Mike Lowry
9:33 am on Sunday, October 7, 2012
ReplyFor Obama: By what authority do you decide as President not to enforce laws passed by Congress and signed into law by a previous President?
For Romney: If you want to promote economic growth and reform of Washington why won't you promote passage of the Fair Tax?
-
On the Blog Post Sailing into Uncharted Waters
Mike Lowry
10:01 am on Saturday, September 29, 2012
Pam, I'm sure every liberal firmly believes that government programs, all government programs, "help" people. There are some who actually might become homeless or even die from hunger. This view masks the reality that there are hundreds of programs for homeless (I work in one for homeless teens), and food banks abound -- all private without government assistance. I can even support a minimal state-level safety net for a short period to help people transition over a rough spot. The federal government should have no role here.
Putting 53 million people on food stamps and providing 2 years of unemployment compensation isn't really helping anyone, just expanding the base of government dependency and removing their incentive to find real work. There are better solutions.
-
On the Blog Post Sailing into Uncharted Waters
Mike Lowry
10:54 am on Friday, September 28, 2012
This is like debating with a credit card company that the interest rate is really 23.5% instead of 22.1%. It completely misses the point.
Mike Lowry
9:11 am on Thursday, March 7, 2013
Actually, having the Justice Department serve as the arbiter is a case of the cure being worse than the illness. In today's world, DOJ serves mostly to prevent any fixes to massive vote fraud and to racially filter every action.
The facts regarding racial balance and voting rights inequality don't match the rhetoric at all. Massachusetts does not fall under Section V, but has a much worse racial voter balance (i.e., percentage of blacks registered to vote) than GA, AL and MS.
Section V was unconstitutional when it was passed, and may finally be declared so by SCOTUS.