Read GOP lips: No more IRS -- Hastert hints of Bush's secret plan to end income tax

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Tuesday, August 3, 2004

[EternalVigilance]

Anyway, I'm glad they are talking about having some serious discussions about the issue.

We finally find a point of agreement...

[EternalVigilance]

[sic]

Nitpicking about spelling is generally a sign you're losing the debate.

You've been losing this debate every time you argue it for at least 4 years here.

[Walkingfeather]

actually you are wrong on this one. This may indeed happen by actually going around the congress and ordering the secretary of the treasury to collect taxes in the new way. He has been studying this BEFORE he was elected.

[Texas Federalist]

Might be a good thing. It would keep taxes right up in people's faces, instead of hidden away in payroll deductions.

That may be the best argument for it right there. It may not be revenue neutral in the long run because it can a means to mobilizing the people against the ridiculous rates of taxation we are now subjected to.

[Texas Federalist]

Might be a good thing. It would keep taxes right up in people's faces, instead of hidden away in payroll deductions.

That may be the best argument for it right there. It may not be revenue neutral in the long run because it can a means to mobilizing the people against the ridiculous rates of taxation we are now subjected to.

[GeorgiaDawg]

I agree...just help me out on something, though:

Would businesses increase their selling price on products? For instance..let's say a widget costs a mfr $8 to make and he sells for $10. What would keep them from raising this cost to $12 if his cost of making it goes up to $10 - then people stop buying - even though they're earning more, the products they purchase are rising in costs as well?

I'm not against it - just trying to understand it better.

[dljordan]

I think you're right. I don't believe they have any intention of changing or dissolving this hateful abberation. Think about the hundreds of thousands of Fed employees who would be out of work not to mention the tax lawyers, accountants, tax preparation services, tax software vendors, etc, etc. This is a giant parasite that won't allow itself to be destroyed along with it's co-parasites. Also the politicians that depend on copius amounts of revenue to justify their existence. Face it, we're slaves but we don't want to admit it. I hope I'm wrong. Even if they do change the way they collect revenue they're not going to design something that LOSES revenue. They're also going to make sure the "poor", that indespensable section of society that justifies so many egregious, expensive programs, aren't going to pay anything but instead will be recipients of government largesse. We're a socialist country but most Americans just can't bring themselves to believe it.

[antceecee]

I may be wrong, but I thought I read on this forum that the 16th amendment was never properly ratified by all of the states in the first place.

[Texas Federalist]

Would businesses increase their selling price on products? For instance..let's say a widget costs a mfr $8 to make and he sells for $10. What would keep them from raising this cost to $12 if his cost of making it goes up to $10 - then people stop buying - even though they're earning more, the products they purchase are rising in costs as well?

The cost of making goods would not go up. A consumption (sales) tax is only to be paid by the end user. Raw materials used to produce finished goods would not be taxed. The opposite of this is a VAT tax, where the cost of making the goods would increase, but the end buyer would pay no tax.

[SZonian]

Then don't try to buy a used auto/motorcycle from a private seller in California. They tax the buyer everytime the vehicle changes owners, and they base it on "fair market value", not what you paid for it, (unless the amount appears reasonable). They will tax the vehicle until it hits the salvage yard, and then probably beyond that whilst the savage yard sells the parts out.

I want to see taxes go the way of the Dodo as well, but I'm very wary of proposals that sound too good to be true. I understand the VAT, and don't like it. The national sales tax wouldn't be a bad thing as long as it accounts/compensates for the difference in State sales taxes. LA county is paying 8.25% and they're trying to raise it to 8.75% for some more "temporary" problems. When it comes to taxes in CA, there seems to be nothing temporary about them.

Cheers!

[EternalVigilance]

*clink*

[smokeyb]

It puts the entire burden of the tax on the poor, and middle class.

It gives a rebate to EVERYONE. No one pays the tax on the amount below the poverty level. (current estimate 23,000)

Read HR25

[chainsaw]

If it goes through you'll realize too late what an ass you were to believe the sales tax pitch.

When governments shed one tax for another you can bet their objective is to collect more not less taxes, from everyone except themselves. You should go back to DU for your sales tax and get off FR.

[phil_will1]

"Herman Cain ran for the senate on the "fairtax" platform and lost just a few weeks ago...."

to Johnny Isakson, a co-sponsor of the FairTax bill in the house. Coming in 3rd was Mac Collins, another co-sponsor. There were no FairTax opponents in that race.

Typical deceptive post by the godfather of FairTax bashers.

However, in the general election, Mr. Isakson will face Ms. Denise Majette, who very well may opppose the FairTax.

Would you like to place your bet on Ms. Majette now, Lewie?

[chainsaw]

I really like the idea of 15% flat tax across the board.

The 15% seems great on the surface. Next year it will be 16% or 17% The year after that it may be 17% or 18 %. Where will it stop? Oh ya I forgot. Rebates, deductions, exemptions for some not for others. To me it's a real Pandora's box. We have sales taxes in about every state now and none give rebates, deductions exemptions to the poor - they pay. These started in most cases at 1%. When you have to save every receipt from everything you buy then apply for the exemption you'll realize the headache it can cause.

[chainsaw]

No one pays the tax on the amount below the poverty level. (current estimate 23,000)

How does this work. When I buy something I just tell them I don't have to pay because I earn less than $23,000! Or do I pay the 15% up front and then file a tax return for a rebate. It seems to me that the object of a national sales tax is to avoid the paper work involved. This could be a Pandora's box trying to separate the various state sales taxes from the federal tax for the purpose of rebates.

I don't like the income tax, and see it as unfair, and full of loopholes that most taxpayers do not know about, and the government will not inform you of. The tax code is a nightmare, and I'm afraid this national sales tax would be a nightmare also.

[ancient_geezer]

You are on the pinger ;O)

[lewislynn]

You've been losing this debate every time you argue it for at least 4 years here.

So what's your problem?

[ancient_geezer]

How does this work. When I buy something I just tell them I don't have to pay because I earn less than $23,000! Or do I pay the 15% up front and then file a tax return for a rebate.

Neither of those methods, as that would not accomplish the desired result.

 

All legal residents will receive a Family Consumption Allowence(FCA) demogrant equivalent to the FairTax paid on essential goods and services. The FCA will be paid in advance, in equal installments each month. The size of the monthly FCA will be determined by the government's Poverty Level for a particular family size, multiplied by the tax rate.

Every year, the Department of Health and Human Services [HHS] determine the "poverty level" for each family size.

The 2001 "FairTax" Family Consumption Allowance Figures
Family Size	HHS Poverty Level	Annual FCA	Monthly FCA
One	$8,590	$1,976	$165
Two	$17,180	$3,951	$329
Three	$20,200	$4,646	$387
Four	$23,220	$5,341	$445
Five	$26,240	$6,035	$503
Six	$29,260	$6,730	$561
Seven	$32,280	$7,424	$619
Eight	$35,300	$8,119	$677

1) Federal Register: February 16, 2001, Pages 10695-10697).

[ The monthly FCA for each adult is .23 * (HSS poverty level for a single person)/12 to assure no marriage penalty due to the manner in which the poverty level is dependant on family size. The monthly FCA for each child is .23 * (the incremental increase of HSS poverty level for a family with one child over no child) ] A. Geezer

A family of four, for example, could spend $23,220 per year free of tax because they will have received over the course of the year rebates totaling $5,341. $5,341 is the amount of sales tax paid on $23,220 in expenditures. A family spending double the "poverty level" or $46,440 per year will effectively pay tax on only half of their spending and, therefore, have an effective tax rate of 11 ½ percent or half the FairTax rate.

The beauty of the FairTax is that you can control how much you pay in taxes. If you happen to save, invest or spend a portion on used [previously taxed] items, you can get your effective tax rate below 9%.

To illustrate examine the tax burden that a family of four will have at various annual expenditure levels.

H.R.25 "The FairTax Act

Not only does every family receive a FCA based on family size, not income, but they will also receive 100% of their paycheck:

Fedup Smith makes $39K per year...once the FairTax is the law of the land he will receive an instant increase in pay of $200.00 per week. Since he has a family of four, he will receive a FCA of $445 per month, for a total of $1,305.00 additional income per month that he can do with as he sees fit

[EternalVigilance]

So what's your problem?

No problem. We're winning the debate.