Posted on 01/31/2005 7:12:16 AM PST by bmweezer
Let's do the math:"Those subject to audits will be reduced from 140 million to about 15 or 20 million."Audits by who? Not the IRS. They're gone.
140M subject to audits by 1 entity = 140M possible auditsGood thing the FairTax is going to reduce compliances costs.
20M subject to audits by 50 entities = 1000M possible audits
Have you been taking math lessons from Lewislynn? You are assuming that every business is subject to audit from every state? Nonsense. Most businesses are local, and would only b subject to audit by the state they do business in.
Why is that any different than now? And why would an Alabama retailer be subject to audit by all 50 states?
Why is that any different than now? And why would an Alabama retailer be subject to audit by all 50 states?Point taken.
Biker,
I assume that you are doing okay for yourself due not only to good planning but also to hard work. The hard work portion of that equation likely means that the feds take a hefty bite from your income and impedes your ability to build a nest egg as fast as you'd like.
I may be off base, and Goddess is much better qualified to judge the generalities that I am about to present than I am. Please bear with me as she sees if my thinking has merit. If it does, she would be better able to answer specific questions (she is brilliant and qualified, I'm not). I think that you will come to the same conclusion that we have come to -- The FairTax has to pass.
Thanks for the time and consideration.
CG, please correct me if I am wrong on my thinking here. . .
The way that I look at BNYC's situation is that the proper way to look at the impact to his buying ability is to compare what happens to him if we continue the present system with all of it's built in impediments to building wealth to what his position will be if the current impediments are removed and he is unfettered in his attempts to build (hopefully) a real fortune.
I assume that there will be some inequity that he will suffer, but even if I knew his specifics, I doubt that I could quantify what the impact would be.
However, since the FairTax totally removes Federal withholding for the Income Tax and FICA he will have more cash to work with than if the present mess continues.
Also, the Gift Tax, Capital Gains Tax, Inheritance and Estate taxes all go away, he will be able to retain a greater portion of them to pass on to his children AND regain control over his wealth that will no longer be subject to bureaucratic rules and confiscatory rates.
I can't help but think that the FairTax would leave him better off overall. One thing is certain. Passage of the FairTax restores his liberty and that of his children to control their own destiny and build wealth tax free.
To me, that's worth paying for if necessary.
That would be a legacy to leave behind.
you are not saying what the better plans are you are not saying what the lies and half truths are
Great question. I'm almost 54, but I would do it in a heartbeat if I were able. I think anyone under 45 who doesn't, isn't thinking clearly and those over 45 would also still probably be better off if they had their own money to invest from this point forward.
you are not saying what the better plans areFlat tax or VAT.
you are not saying what the lies and half truths areHow much time ya got? The biggest two are using the tax-inclusive rate and that prices will drop 20-30% while we take home what use to be deducted from our wages.
I don't want to let the Camel's nose into another tent. The proposed National Sales Tax makes every business person a tax collector for Big Brother. It will bring Federal agents into every community all over America to police businesses small and large to see that they are collecting for the Feds, and thus a further erosion of State's rights to the Feds. Thus, another IRS-like organization will be born to police every business in America. This would be a huge further Federal intrusion into the State, City, & County jurisdictions, something we already have too much off. You may like it. I don't.
If you get your wish, I predict the politicians would still try to bring the income tax back sometime, as I described in my original post, on the basis of some "crisis", real or imagined, promising it to be "very small" and "very temporary" because they are so accustomed to the income tax gravy train after almost a century of milking it. They can create a new IRS-type tax-collecting organization with a new name in short order when they need it--not a problem for them.
"For anyone who's retired on a small income, it'd be a disaster."
Incorrect. Those living at or below the poverty level would experience a 15 - 30% increase in their purchasing power. How would that constitute "a disaster"?
D'uh! It's a sales tax. The state sales tax auditors will do the auditing.
Take a look at post #1041 and tell me that he is an honest debater and not a disruptor who is disengenuous.
"When AND IF the 'fair tax' proponents make it outside their echo chamber and actually have to make their case to a uncommitted public, they are doomed to failure."
We have had considerable success with those who have taken the time to study the issue and have their legitimate concerns answered. We have found, however, that many people have a vested interest in the current system. One example on this thread is the gentleman who balked because he liked the idea of cheap imports from China. He said that they constituted a large portion of his business. Some of the large retailers have the same concern. They have adapted to a tax system which puts US producers at a disadvantage. So what if that system destroys millions of US jobs? So what if the trade deficit gets bigger each and every year?
Nevertheless, as badray has pointed out, the winners would far outnumber the losers under the FairTax. Generally, the more people understand it, the better they like it. That experience certainly has been validated on this thread.
You present concerns as real when they are addressed in the legislation. You speak as though you have no idea what is in the bill.
If you let the possibility of something prevent you from taking positive action . . . .
You decide: Silly, or worse?
"However in the long run there should be no significant difference in the value of your savings."
I beg to differ. A couple of nationally known money managers have expressed the opinion that the DJI would double within 24 months of the FairTax's passage. When that happens, guess who the primary beneficiaries would be?
Young couples just starting out with no savings? NOT!!
The US of A would become the largest tax haven in the world and a magnet for international capital.
Or do you mean this 5% VAT, H.R.15, by Rep Dingell, John D. [MI-15], to provide a program of national health insurance on top of everything else?
I saw that. However he did concede when his error was pointed out. That alone should at least put him in a separate class than Lewislynn. I would give him the benefit of the doubt that it was just posted too quickly without thinking about it than intentionally deceptive.
I'm aware you can glean a lot of good info from YN's arguments, even if his constant criticism of the FairTax without making the case of why another plan is better does get tiresome.
LOL - I don't know what the DJI is.
The term `gross payments' means payments for taxable property or services, including Federal taxes imposed by this title.
(14) Taxable property or service-
`(A) GENERAL RULE- The term `taxable property or service' means-- ...
It contradicts itself...where is the taxing of "Federal taxes imposed by this title" defined in "taxable property or service"?...
How does taxing "Federal taxes imposed by this title" not "prevent double, multiple, or cascading taxation"?
Your logic and contradictions are all over the map.
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.