Fair Tax Leadership

Comment

Comment by Adrian B Early on December 9, 2009 at 3:16pm

I recently wrote this to a colleague:

Note this statement about investing in India http://www.fool.com/investing/international/2009/12/09/read-this-be....

The secret to investing in India
After laying all that out, Shah shared his secret to making money in India: Bet on the business, and bet on the people. India is a "rising tide," he said. "Back the right entrepreneur, and you always make money."

Always? We pressed him on this point. He replied that if your Indian investments are in entrepreneurs and companies whose business skills and quality are beyond doubt, then yes, over the long term, you will always make money. "Some will move first and some later," he said, "but all will move." That's the power of investing in an economy with as much potential as India's, and that's the philosophy under which the $20 billion Shah is managing is being put to work.

Is this not the case anywhere and at any time? Does the US value the entrepreneur? Or are we succumbing to Schumpeter's fear (In Can Capitalism Survive?) for the capitalist system (here)? That problem is loathing for the (rich) entrepreneur, or considering them irrelevant. If Capitalism falters here, it will arise elsewhere.

The Fair Tax benefits producers. The income tax and business taxes benefit consumers. Which do we want more? It is very much like valuing or loathing (rich) entrepreneurs.

-ABE

Comment by Steve Curtis on December 5, 2009 at 1:12pm

We are working on our FairTax Newsletter, and would like to include some humor. I am looking for people with some cartooning experience who would like to contribute. If you'd like to develop FairTax-themed cartoons, and have them published in our Newsletter, let me know either on this site, or directly at s.curtis@ohfairtax.org

Comment by Adrian B Early on November 16, 2009 at 1:20pm

Reading further in Schumpeter's short (about 100 page) book, Can Capitalism Survive?, he invokes even the very Communist Manifesto:

"The last candidate is technological progress. Was not the observed performance due to that stream of inventions that revolutionized the technique of production rather than to the businessman's hunt for profits? The answer is in the negative. The carrying into effect of those technological novelties was of the essence of that hunt. And even the inventing itself, as will be more fully explained in a moment, was a function of the capitalist process which is responsible for the mental habits that will produce invention. It is therefore quite wrong - and also quite un-Marxian - to say, as so many economists do, that capitalist enterprise was one, and technological progress a second, distinct factor in the observed development of output; they were essentially one and the same thing or, as we may also put it, the former was the propelling force of the latter."

(Bold emphasis mine)

-ABE

Comment by Adrian B Early on November 15, 2009 at 2:52pm

Hi fellow citizens.

Our president wants to redistribute the wealth (remember Joe the Plumber). That, as we all know, is socialism.

Joseph Schumpeter feared (as Marx hoped) that the "masses" would rise up and demand "efficiency" (note the healthcare debate) and "fairness" of socialism over the "greed" of capitalism and capitalists. See Schumpeter's book, Can Capitalism Survive?

Some ask, "Is socialism more "fair" or more efficient", BUT THEY tend to LOOK AT ONE POINT IN TIME ONLY ("now")? Yet, THIS IS NOT THE PRIME VALUE OF CAPITALISM !! Chapter III of Schumpeter says, "This process of Creative Destruction is the essential fact about capitalism", then "...the problem that is usually being visualized is how capitalism administers existing structures, whereas the relevant problem is how it creates and destroys them".

So, for greatest fairness to most people AND for efficiency IN THE LONG RUN, we MUST embrace Schumpeter's gale of creative destruction. Our society needs (yea is built upon) entrepreneurs, even if some despise them as "rich". Entrepreneurs bring progress. Government or "the collective" cannot. This is why the USSR lost the cold war.

And by the way, we should let failing businesses die, not spend tax money on preserving them (or their political power or that of unions). Schumpeter's gale observation of reality includes destruction whether or not we like it. Better that than government enforced destruction under tyranny (Mao is the "greatest" (most efficient) murderer in history). And North Korea is hardly utopian or "fair".

The simple Fair Tax and simple free markets enable individual choice to select "elements" of both consumption and social good (through charity or multiple (triple, etc.) bottom line considerations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_bottom_line).

May the economic system with the most liberty,
and the tax with the most freedom prevail.
They are long run the most efficient and compassionate.

May we simplify government and empower people?

-ABE

Comment by Steve Curtis on November 13, 2009 at 7:44pm

I say the same thing. It shows that the basic FairTax philosophy is broader and wider then most realize. As more folks hear the FairTax message, I expect that we will see more and more people demanding, not asking, DEMANDING the FairTax.

Comment by Adrian B Early on November 13, 2009 at 5:34pm

On Glenn Beck's program today (all black audience) the first of the final statements of participants was "We have to repeal the income tax." as the most pressing issue for the nation (in that person's view).
Are others watching and paying attention?
-ABE

Comment by Adrian B Early on November 10, 2009 at 4:12pm

Judge Napolitano (stand in for Glenn Beck today) advocated (among other things) nullifying or repealing the income tax. This is all about the US Constitution.

You might watch Glenn Beck regularly if you do not already (and encourage others to do so). "What if (he) is right?"

My we get mainstream. We are on the right side of history.

Go Fair Tax.
Go American liberty.
Please inform others.

-ABE

Comment by Adrian B Early on November 5, 2009 at 1:26pm

Regarding (an example of) international tax competition:

Notice that Singapore combines a consumption tax with low income and business taxes (no capital gains taxes). See "types of Taxes in Singapore" under http://www.guidemesingapore.com/tax/c647-singapore-tax-system-overv... (bold and bold underline emphasis mine)

Goods & Services Tax (GST) is a tax on consumption. The tax is paid when money is spent on goods or services, including imports.

...And under "Singapore Tax: Key Points":

# Corporate Tax Rate is capped at 18%. By keeping corporate rates competitive Singapore continues to attract a good share of foreign investment. Effective 2010, corporate income tax rate will be further reduced from 18% to 17% to help maintain Singapore's competitiveness. Singapore follows a single-tier corporate tax system, where tax paid by a company on its profits is not imputed to the shareholders (i.e. dividends are tax free). For a comprehensive account of corporate taxation in Singapore, refer to Singapore Corporate Income Tax guide.
# Individual Tax Rate start at 0% and is capped at 20% (above S$320,000) for residents and a flat rate of 15% for non-residents. As an example, if you are tax resident in Singapore and your personal income for the year was S$160,000, your income tax liability will be S$15,5000. For more details, see Singapore Personal Income Tax guide.
# Goods and Services Tax - To increase the resilience of taxes as a source of government revenue, Goods & Services Tax (GST) was introduced in 1994. The current GST rate is 7%. The balanced mix of tax on consumption and income reduces the vulnerability of revenue intake to adverse changes in economic conditions and strengthens the resilience of Singapore's fiscal position. For more details, see Singapore Goods and Services Tax (GST) guide.

The reason (from http://www.prlog.org/10200672-singapores-tax-rate-reduction-spurs-f...) is:

"Mar 18, 2009 – The Singapore government has lowered several key tax rates in response to the growing financial crisis. A key assumption behind this strategy (often illustrated through the Laffer curve) is that lower tax rates will spur entrepreneurial activity and help the country buffer the economic slowdown. Preliminary data from GuideMeSingapore.com show that the government's move may be having the desired effect with foreign entrepreneurs.".

As mentioned on Neil Cavuto yesterday, Singapore has a robust banking and finance "cluster" (my designation after Michael Porter of Harvard, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_cluster), and may be a good destination for capable folks in this business seeking income higher than the US regime allows (or wants to allow).

-ABE

Comment by Adrian B Early on November 5, 2009 at 10:52am

Jamie and Shelby,

Your (very similar) slogans are quite insightful:
Fair Tax. Because you can't fight what you can't see.
and
You can't fight for something you don't know exists!

In (automatic) control engineering, we consider observability and also controllability. The Fair Tax provides (as your slogans underline) observability of taxes we might seek to control. But IT ALSO GIVES US CONTROL. We can choose to not spend and thus reduce our tax burden (as you all well know).

This is a decision you make in a FREE MARKET. It is vastly unlike the big government monopolistic and strong arm (extortion?) intrusions concerning everything from protection money required if not buying the health insurance monopoly "product" to threatening bank audit harassment for paying good talent to seek to manage the bank instead of allowing uncle Sam to do it.

My point is that knowledge (not unlike information from a free press; also under attack), and liberty to act on that knowledge for personal benefit (buy less and save or invest) IN MARKETS (not central government control or in cronyism with controlled "businesses" like Mousollini, Stalin, and Kim Jong Il value) is the essence of the Fair Tax.

The prosperity and true peace under liberty is much closer to the (classical) "liberal ideal" (and of course, the "conservative ideal") than those whose propaganda was "utopian" or "nationalistic", purportedly for the benefit of "workers" (labor taxed up to 100%) there.

Keep up the good fight.
Go Fair Tax. Go American liberty.

-ABE

Comment by Jamie Wheeler WA on November 3, 2009 at 12:25am

Shelby...sometimes it is as at that level we reach the most people. LOL Here is a similar one I use.
FairTax...You can't fight for something you don't know exists!

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 10
• 11
• 12
• 13
• 14
• …
• 39
• Next ›
• Page