The Fraudulent Tax

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

[Conservative Goddess]

"...regulations will still be in place..."

Are you arguing that the FairTax will not effectively repeal the Internal Revenue Code? If the Statute is repealed, why do you believe the supporting regulations will have any import?

[socialismisinsidious]

I don't care how much of my federal taxes my pay stub covers or how much is hidden or how easy you think it is to figure...that is a minor problem. As we have been saying for some time the income tax is a socialist's dream, it is progressive and soon a majority will be paying no taxes under your 17K or 60K page tax code. The income tax is an unholy alliance between statist intellectuals and persons with welfare/state sponsored utopia dreams. It is loved by wealthy interests b/c of what they have to hide (money,money,money)It is dangerous to this Republic.

You don't like the bill b/c you have something to gain from status quo...was there economic disaster prior to 1913? are countries that do not have our income tax structure collapsing?

I don't really care if you agree with me or not...I'm not a bud b/c I'm not male. Funny how you point out that I don't know you....yet you think that you know me (I'm the one who can't get along with anyone who doesn't support HR25. sure.) So the deal is: I'm suppose to take you and your gang of thuds jumping on me without answering or "unable to play with others" will be in my permanent file...I'll take the label.

[Always Right]

Are you arguing that the FairTax will not effectively repeal the Internal Revenue Code?

While I could make a point a good portion of the IRS code is left in place (the Fairtax bill repeals selected sections not the whole code), that was not my point. When you say compliance costs AND regulations costs, I assumed he was talking about regulations outside of the IRS code like OSHA or something. Otherwise he is just being redundant with his terms.

[socialismisinsidious]

If you are able to read and respond to the post then please tell me how that is backstabbing?

Writing mean things knowing that the person can't respond is just wrong and in line with something that can be read on DummieUnderground. btw: The "everyone else did it" is a lame excuse.

[socialismisinsidious]

Everyone, except for Illegals, gets the rebate on taxes on necessities and you know why. If the rich don't want to pay the tax then they don't have to spend their money either. It boils down to a choice between a tax where you choose how much you are taxed and a tax that is set by bureaucrappers and paid via gunpoint. Surely even you can understand the difference.

This past year, under a system you defend, I paid a higher tax rate than Teresa Heinz did....can you explain that to me!

[socialismisinsidious]

So? You still acted badly. He was suspended and it should have ended there.

[socialismisinsidious]

No. Not every small business is an accountant service and many do not have the ability to hire contractors. In any event, in the end, it boils down to being about freedom.

[socialismisinsidious]

So that is it? the solution is to vote in a Congress that is in opposition to the other branches? Instead of fixing a horrible system we should just imagine how bad it could be....sigh. And when a majority aren't paying any taxes and a minority is paying them all...then what? I guess we can hope that Atlas shrugs.
socialism is insidious

[Always Right]

You seem a bit sensitive. I appreciated your enthusiasm for this bill, as it does have certain benefits. But there are not a bunch of thugs jumping on you. Just people who disagree with some of your points and think a 30 percent sales tax may not be the best solution. Considering you characterize everyone against the fairtax as being 'pro IRS', that kind of rubs people the wrong way.

[socialismisinsidious]

If you choose not to pay the taxes and don't work then you can live off of welfare...which is the other side of this problem. If we continue to allow Congress an unlimited amount of money and allow Congress to dictate how much we give then there will be no end to the welfare state....at some breaking point people are going to ask 'why work'?

You do have a choice with sales tax: If you don't want to pay the sales tax then don't buy the item. If I don't want to pay a bigger % in taxes than Teresa Heinz there is not a real choice for me.....there is your choice: to go on welfare so that someone else who chooses to pay those taxes can carry me. some choice.

[socialismisinsidious]

Huh? who is working to legitimize illegals? I would argue that working under the table and paying no federal taxes, like what is happening now, legitimizes illegals. Trying to capture some of the money that illegals are costing this country, before they are rounded up and sent home (ha, cracking myself up) is not legitimizing them, but instead it is giving them one more reason to leave.

[Polybius]

If the employer is going to hand Joe the whole $117.95, then that implies that Joe's gross annual income remains the same as before. All the taxes passed to the government on Joe's behalf are in his paycheck. The employer has no net savings in his labor costs (wages and salaries) except the cost of tax compliance. ............Myrddin

Seriously, do you understand the payroll tax at all? For every penny taken out of the employee's paycheck for FICA, the employer has to contribute an additional penny -- ..........kevkrom

So, instead of the empoloyer taking out one penny out of the business account, putting into Joe's check and then taking it right back out again and then taking another penny out of the business account and than mailing both pennies to the U.S. Government, the employer would put both pennies into Joe's account so that Joe can have Walmart take it out of him and send it to the U.S. Government.

The only thing the employer saves is a 39 cent stamp and the time it takes their computer to fill out the tax forms.

[socialismisinsidious]

Keeping a crappy system b/c you think you can enforce it is a poor argument. You want to keep the income tax system b/c of what you gain from it.

You are the one with the brain strain. It was not another point, but an analogy (as in a similarity between two things that are otherwise dissimilar).

[balrog666]

Keeping a crappy system b/c you think you can enforce it is a poor argument. You want to keep the income tax system b/c of what you gain from it.

Are you just stupid? Ever heard of a strawman argument? Quit putting forth stupid ideas and attributing them to me!

You are the one with the brain strain. It was not another point, but an analogy (as in a similarity between two things that are otherwise dissimilar).

It was a poor analogy; it was a non-sequitur.

If you can't find a rational argument, I suggest you do some more research.

[socialismisinsidious]

I would believe that statement if there was evidence that the others were promoting or explaining their tax replacement/reform agenda. I have yet to see any evidence of that. Tidbits are thrown out, but no one is actively defending/explaining any tax reform (other than the fairtax). He who will not be named has repeatedly asked for information on what tax plans people like and he goes unanswered or poorly answered. That leads most to believe that the status quo is favored and the status quo is the income tax/IRS.

[socialismisinsidious]

Why pass a new law that will be scoffed at when you can just enforce the current law ...

You are the one who wrote this not me.

It isn't my problem that you didn't understand the analogy.

You should really listen to your own advice.

[balrog666]

I would believe that statement if there was evidence that the others were promoting or explaining their tax replacement/reform agenda. I have yet to see any evidence of that. Tidbits are thrown out, but no one is actively defending/explaining any tax reform (other than the fairtax). He who will not be named has repeatedly asked for information on what tax plans people like and he goes unanswered or poorly answered. That leads most to believe that the status quo is favored and the status quo is the income tax/IRS.

Nonsense. Quit lying. The FairTax threads have been around here for at least six years and you can read as many of them as you wish. The FairyTaxers ignore reality; the rationalists refuse to bet the entire US economy on an untried and seemingly stupid idea, especially without an attendant repeal of the 16th Amendment.

Most of us prefer the Flat Tax, especially as it's been tried and works, but it's even more buried than the Fair Tax. Almost all of us prefer that we cut government spending.

And all of us think the NRST is a bad idea in the first place. Ask any economist what a 30% federal sales tax will do to consumer spending... now couple a 30% NRST *WITH* an income tax. It's an economic nightmare.

[balrog666]

You are the one who wrote this not me. It isn't my problem that you didn't understand the analogy. You should really listen to your own advice.

If you object to the economic effects of illegal immigration, then enforce the laws against illegal immigration. That's not an argument *FOR* the FairTax.

Get it?

[xcamel]

Great rationalization, but ummmm. wrong.

[Dimples]

I don't care how much of my federal taxes my pay stub covers or how much is hidden or how easy you think it is to figure...

Then why did you make such a big deal about how impossible it is for you to figure out your tax burden? Heck, you even took the time to start a whole new thread on the AMT!

If you recall, it is precisely BECAUSE you claimed that "hidden taxes" were so numerous and so inscrutable that we got into this discussion. My initial post to you was PRECISELY becaused you claimed your paystub couldn't possibly account for a majority of your tax burden ... that so much of it was hidden and unknowable.

Now that you've been proved wrong about that, you've pulled the typical FairTax supporter debate tactic of distancing your self from your primary arguments by claiming that you really don't care about the central points of discussion of the past three days and thousands of typed words.

Now you've resorted to name calling: unholy allainces, statist intellectuals, welfare/state sponsored utopia (sic) dreams. And you've resorted to emotional appeals: freedom, danger to the Republic, etc. And you've invoked the "you must benefit from the statue quo" dismissal. All clear signs you have reached the point where you are no longer able to engage in substantive debate.

So much for the debate; emotions and name calling are not debatable.

I never said I knew you ... in any sense of the word. I said it's possible you know me. My use of the term bud is meant as a term of friendship not meant to imply gender, sorry you've taken such offense. Would the term "friend" be less offensive to you?

The rest of your rant is rather obtuse. No one is labeling you. No one said you couldn't respond. No one said you couldn't disagree. There's nothing for you to "take". Either you wish to debate, and stay on point, or you don't.

If you are "scatter shot" debater expect to be called on it. If you are going to make false or disprovable assertions, expect to be disproven.

Again, I don't like the bill because I believe it's implementation will be an economic disaster. And yes, there were several economic disasters prior to 1913: the US experienced depressions in 1807, 1837, 1873, 1882, and 1893; but that's another off-topic red herring.