Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Fraudulent Tax
The Mises Institute ^ | October 9th, 2006 | Laurence M. Vance

Posted on 10/10/2006 8:59:26 AM PDT by cryptical

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 581-591 next last
To: pigdog
Until the 16th amendment is repealed a national sales tax isn't going to fly. People are not going to tolerate it unless the income tax is irrevocably killed. Even so, I still doubt the NRST will provide the revenue neutral replacement envisioned.
281 posted on 10/16/2006 3:47:26 PM PDT by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin
The FairTax bill eliminates the income tax, the appropriate parts of the tax code, the IRS, and requires the income tax records to be destroyed.

It also calls for the repeal of the 16th amendment. As a revenue bill, the FairTax bill cannot also be a repeal bill as the requirements and logistics of the two are quite different. It is, however, very much the intent of the FairTax organization to repeal the 16th and starting the repeal process with the operating FairTax bill as the tax law allows the requisite time (7 years) for the repeal process while protecting us from having an income tax at the same time.

Keep in mind, that with enough votes to pass the FairTax there will certainly be enough votes to sidetrack any attempts to bring back an income tax while the repeal moves forward. Then, too, the taxpayers will certainly realize the benefits of the FairTax and wouldn't allow the return of the income tax in any such time period (even if it were possible to restart it from the ground up since keep in mind all of the infrastructure and laws of the income tax will have been removed).

282 posted on 10/16/2006 4:37:37 PM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin
Oh, and for revenue neutral requirements, check this study by a recognized economic group. This is the latest in a series of such studies that have all determined the revenue neutral rate to be in the range of 22 to 24% tax inclusive.
283 posted on 10/16/2006 4:41:06 PM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
"This actually contains most of the teeth the IRS has. It shows the FairTax is business as usual as far as tax collection goes. The FairTax does not do anything about eliminating the 800 lb. gorilla outside of renaming it."

In fact, it shows nothing of the sort ("business as usual") since if you'll peruse that Subchapter you'll see it deals almost completely only with the income tax covering things such as time and place for paying tax, collection, abatements, jeopardy, receivership, interest, etc. - almost all relating to the income tax system which no longer will exist.

Once the specified time period allowed for finishing the IRS affairs on outstanding cases it will not be useful at all and is only marginally useful for that purpose once the FairTax passes.

284 posted on 10/16/2006 4:59:59 PM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: pigdog
The present in income tax system as well as all of the flat tax systems have the government "taxing itself" (as you opponents like to phrase it).

Show me where the government currently pays taxes to itself and how much that is. And I mean where the government actually writes a check to itself like they would have tp under the fairytax. Show and quantify it.

285 posted on 10/16/2006 5:51:32 PM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
"Show me where the government currently pays taxes to itself and how much that is. And I mean where the government actually writes a check to itself like they would have tp [sic} under the fairytax [sic]. Show and quantify it."

Why - I'm shocked, shocked to hear that you don't know that it shows up on every government employee's "paycheck stub".

You've repeatedly insisted that is so and NOW you seem to have conveniently forgotten that fact.

Tsk, tsk!!

286 posted on 10/17/2006 4:42:36 AM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: pigdog
Why - I'm shocked, shocked to hear that you don't know that it shows up on every government employee's "paycheck stub".

Nice try, but that comes out of the employees salary and the employee who is responsible for that tax. Withholding is a service provided by the employer mandated by the government. By your logic none of the money withheld from your paycheck is paid by you, so in fact you don't even pay income taxes. Another one of your nonsensical arguments. But what should I expect from a shill. Arguing with a shill is a waste of time.

287 posted on 10/17/2006 5:53:31 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: pigdog
...some of whom have never paid taxes before to any particular degree.

Raising the same revenue is easily done since there are millions of taxpayers added to the tax base in the way of those now paying nothing in tax including millions and millions of those in the illegal economy.

So then, the FairTaxers are counting on those who engage in the illegal economy to put political pressure on politicians to keep taxes low. You can't include those at the lower end of the economic scale in the non-taxpaying group because they will have more money to spend thanks to the prebate and will be paying less in tax than they do now. Illegal immigrants can't vote so their influence would be negligible and besides, the FairTax is supposed to drive them home. Perhaps the Mexican government will put bring pressure to bare because the more illegals pay in tax, the less they have to send home.

Perhaps you are throwing your lot in with the criminal element? I wonder what government programs they would like to see cut. The War on Drugs, maybe? Its pretty expensive and not all that effective.

288 posted on 10/17/2006 6:43:47 AM PDT by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
Stop the continual personal attacks!!

The money that government employees pay back to their government is, indeed, provided by the government which then in effect is taxing itself. It's a shame you don't realize that. Did you think the money grew on the US money tree everyone has in their back yard or, perhaps, that their grandpa gave it to them???

289 posted on 10/17/2006 7:05:19 AM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
Nice try, but that comes out of the employees salary and the employee who is responsible for that tax.

Wouldn't we also assume that government employees will pay the FairTax on all personal consumption? If we tax the government employees for their consumption and we tax government for the employee, doesn't that amount to double taxation?

You've thought more about the issue of taxing government more than I have, so maybe you can shed some light.

The FairTax stated argument for taxing government purchases and for its employees is to keep government from having an unfair advantage over the private sector. If all withholding is eliminated for all employers except government, who must pay an additional 30% tax on the employee's compensation, then doesn't the FairTax actually put government at a disadvantage, ie, employees working for governments would cost more than those working in the private sector?

I know that 30% is added to the cost of services provided by an employee in the private sector, but that added tax is paid by the consumer, not the employer. The employer merely forwards the collected tax.

290 posted on 10/17/2006 7:06:55 AM PDT by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom
Nope - you've missed the point that those in the illegal economy will be paying more in taxes with the FairTax than they do now, not less.

In addition, many of those folks vote and once they realize the FairTax is costing them big time, they'll help intensify the pressure on Congress to reduce spending.

Even the illegal immigrants - the ones who can't vote - will be paying much more in taxes under the FairTax. That is apparent to most people ... but apparently you choose to not believe it. Suit yourself.

As for "throwing in my lot with the criminal element" - that's clearly nonsense but wishing to see them (and other present non-taxpayers) pay taxes at the same marginal rate as everyone else is certainly reasonable but your continued attacks certainly imply that you think having many non-taxpayers is just fine. It seems to me that such a view puts YOU more in line with casting your lot with the criminal element than I since many non-taxpayers are in that category.

291 posted on 10/17/2006 7:16:23 AM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom
The FairTax stated argument for taxing government purchases and for its employees is to keep government from having an unfair advantage over the private sector.

Which is a strange argument to rationalize their position. Is a policeman or a fireman really competing with the private sector? I am trying to think what I buy from the government that competes with the government, and I can't really think of anything. I can't buy housing, clothing, food, or cars from the government. I suppose public transportation might be one area, but there aren't really a bunch of private companies who want to run city buses, and in that case I would think the consumer would be charged a 30% sales tax, so it would be a form of double taxation to make the city also pay sales tax on the buses and drivers salary too. The whole arguement makes no sense. But it does provide some smoke and mirrors for the fairtaxers to run their magic.

292 posted on 10/17/2006 7:29:17 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 290 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom
"... government, who must pay an additional 30% tax on the employee's compensation ..."

Government doesn't pay "an additional 30% on employee's compensation" at all. It pays 23% of gross wages of employees not including those in education less the 7.65% of ER FICA.

There is no "double taxation" in this instance under the FairTax since the employee is not being taxed that amount, but the government itself. In addition, this merely puts the government and the private sector on an equal tax basis as examples in the past have illustrated. The government is merely a taxable employer in this instance as are you if you hire some maids to clean your home as opposed to a private cleaning service (i.e., if you yourself employ the maids directly). You are functioning as a private employer just as is the government with its employees and you also have no FICA to pay.

The compensation level of government workers is something that would be worked out between the government and its employees. Whether they get their pay to include the previously federal-withheld amounts or not is probably something Congress will probably need to decide rather than you or I. AFAIC, there would be a fine place to reduce spending (but then I don't work for the government as some of you folks probably do).

293 posted on 10/17/2006 7:33:53 AM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 290 | View Replies]

To: pigdog
The money that government employees pay back to their government is, indeed, provided by the government which then in effect is taxing itself. It's a shame you don't realize that
Uh huh and the money the government would collect from their employees from the Fairtax "replacement" tax would also be provided by the government. However the NEW, ADDITIONAL 30% Fairtax ON their wages, salaries and benefits the governments would be required to collect would NOT be provided by the government ...unless you're of the mind that all money is government's, which I have no doubt you believe to be true.
294 posted on 10/17/2006 7:43:04 AM PDT by lewislynn (Fairtax = lies, hope, wishful thinking, conjecture and lack of logic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: Always Right; Bigun; StJacques
"... I can't really think of anything ..."

No real surprise there ... but that means little since there are indeed private companies that either presently do - or would wish to - compete with government-provided services. Policemen/firemen may not be good examples, but take school busing. It used to be provided by private companies in many areas of the country, but now those services are provided almost exclusively by government-funded facilities - and the government has such a tax advantage that no one really believes a private firm can be cost-competitive with such a "free" (yeah, right) service.

The fact you can think of none most likely means you're not trying too hard since it doesn't fit your agenda of opposing the FairTax.

Bigun commented on this subject a number of threads ago, but you must not have been paying attention. If the government decided in all its Congressional wisdom to take up the manufacture and sale of fuel-efficient automobiles, for example, do you think that many existing private companies would be cost-competitive for very long while being burdened by a tax load that the government did not have to pay???

295 posted on 10/17/2006 7:46:36 AM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]

To: lewislynn
Could you explain that in understandable English???

Oh, and BTW the tax on government noneducational employees is 23% of gross wages, not the notoriously-wrong "30%" and in fact is even less than 23% since it is reduced further by the 7.65% ER FICA that needn't be paid.

296 posted on 10/17/2006 7:50:24 AM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 294 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

Well, the postal service does compete with private delivery companies. But I don't see how taxing government for its employees who must pay the FairTax (which is supposed to replace the income tax) as consumers equalizes anything.


297 posted on 10/17/2006 7:53:15 AM PDT by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]

To: pigdog
Congressional wisdom to take up the manufacture and sale of fuel-efficient automobiles, for example, do you think that many existing private companies would be cost-competitive for very long while being burdened by a tax load that the government did not have to pay???

But in the FairTax world, its the private company that doesn't pay the tax while the government enterprise does. This makes more sense to you?

The current system has both private and government employees paying income tax. The one area where government might have an advantage is not needing to make a profit for investors. That, however is not a tax issue.

298 posted on 10/17/2006 8:01:21 AM PDT by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

To: pigdog

Who wants to be in the business of busing children to school? The government is not in the business of competing with private enterprise and in the few cases it does is because the people demanded the government provide those services.


299 posted on 10/17/2006 8:08:46 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom
Well, the postal service does compete with private delivery companies. But I don't see how taxing government for its employees who must pay the FairTax (which is supposed to replace the income tax) as consumers equalizes anything.

Then the proper way to make it competitive is to charge a sales tax on the postage. That would be equal treatment.

300 posted on 10/17/2006 8:11:23 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 297 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 581-591 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson