Posted on 02/13/2005 10:41:05 AM PST by nsmart
The FairTax is the non-partisan national sales tax proposal that would replace all federal income taxes. These include personal, estate, gift, self-employment, alternative minimum, capital gains, FICA, and corporate and death taxes.
(Excerpt) Read more at WWW.FAIRTAX.ORG ...
Signing off now. Must attend to other duties. Nice discoursing with you all.
The FedGov doesn't even need probable cause to confiscate your car and all your cash if you are carrying more than $10,000 in cash while driving around the countryside shopping for antiques. I share your concern. It is a valid point but certainly not a deal killer here. I keep all receipts of large purchases anyway.
Now that we have established the FACT the a Purchaser is LIABLE unless he has a receipt and must REMIT the tax to the state, that means INDIVIDUALS are subject to all the same audits, requirements to produce records, liens, and penalities.
Unless you're a fairtax supporter who only reads the propaganda posted at AFFT and is in constant denial of the facts, I don't know how anyone could read it any different...
the text of the bill that talks about audits, clearly says no probable cause is needed. Dispute what is clearly laid out in the bill. You make all these posts with big words and big thoughts, but you can't dispute simple points.
What you miss is the key issue that creates the nexus and reasonable cause for an audit.
An individual not engaged in a sale never collects a tax, he only files & pays a tax.
`(b) Examinations and Audits- The sales tax administering authority has the authority to conduct at a reasonable time and place examinations and audits of persons who are or may be liable to collect and remit tax imposed by this subtitle and to examine the books, papers, records, or other data of such persons which may be relevant or material to the determination of tax due.
"collect and remit" is conjunctive, it requires both capacities and only those who sell or otherwise convey a property or service in trade create the necessary nexus for that audit.
Only a business and those engaged in sales are liable to collect and remit, and only they may have that cause sufficient to trigger audit barring other possible witness like that nosy neighbor watching you buy that Cadillac from that no good purveyor of nefarious black market goods without tax Vinny.
In which case your good neighbor, or even Vinny if he has an invalid exemption certificate on file for you, provides the probable cause for a warrant for search, seizure or inquiry concerning:
Sect 505:
- (e) RECKLESS OR WILLFUL FAILURE TO PAY TAX-
- (c) Reckless or Willful Assertion of Invalid Exemption- or
- (f) Penalty for Late Filing-
But Vinny that blackguard of a Seller is the one that is open to the audits on "reasonable cause" as a seller required to "collect and remit":
Sec 505:
I respectfully but adamantly disagree!
To my mind, the MODE of taxation is of utmost importance.
What we currently endure requires the average citizen to deal with an agency of the government on a level unimaginable to the founders and there is simply NO reason that we need to continue to endure it! NONE whatsoever!
To my mind, the MODE of taxation is of utmost importance.
LOL, you aren't the only one to see it that way you know ;O)
Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention June 12, 1788:
- "the oppression arising from taxation, is not from the amount but, from the mode -- a thorough acquaintance with the condition of the people, is necessary to a just distribution of taxes. The whole wisdom of the science of Government, with respect to taxation, consists in selecting the mode of collection which will best accommodate to the convenience of the people."
Out hobbnobing with the colonial riffraff again Bigun??
"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
Benjamin Franklin
Why am I not surprised?
LOL, guess that last was from Benjamin.
They tell me the memory is what goes first :O/.
Can there be ANY doubt whatsoever as to the correctness of that statement in a supposedly FREE nation?
Guess what, some people are honest with their opinions... everyone doesn't do as you do.
That accusation speaks volumes about you doesn't it?
Not according to the writings of Dan R. Mastromarco and David R. Burton.
From the AFFT website:
[26] If the $47,129 of our family's income was all wage income, then that couple would have paid $3,605 in employee payroll taxes on those wages. Note also that their wages were also about $3,605 lower because of the employer payroll tax. As noted earlier, economists generally believe that the employer share of the payroll tax is borne by the employee in the form of lower wages. After the standard deduction, the couple would pay income taxes of $6,433, most of which would be in the 15 percent rate bracket, but some of which would be in the 28 percent rate bracket. /5/ Hence, using a standard deduction, the couple would have paid $10,038 of taxes on
5 $47,129, leaving our family $37,091 after taxes. Of that disposable income, 4.3 percent is $1,595.
[27] Today, assuming our couple earn 8 percent on their savings, are in the 28 percent bracket, and save $1,595 each year at the beginning of the year, they would be able to save their down payment by early in the eighth year.
[28] Under the AFT Fair Tax plan, their disposable income will increase to $50,734 because of the repeal of all payroll and income taxes....
Gee, sorry to burst your payroll tax saving bubble using (as usual) your own source of facts....from the authors of the bill no less.
Gee, sorry to burst your payroll tax saving bubble using (as usual) your own source of facts....from the authors of the bill no less.
You figure you'll get a takehome pay increase over the gross specified by contract if a business sees better ways to sustain profits? LOL, I got a bridge to sell you. Better you I would suggest you make yourself very indispensible if you figure on getting that raise.
When lacking empirical measurements,
"economists generally believe"
8 magic assumptions by economists about dollars paid to government by businesses:
1) Paying corporate income tax to government only reduces shareholders capital/earnings, and wages, but never increases consumer price.
2) Paying corporate property taxes to government only reduces shareholder capital/earnings and wages.
3) Paying any excise tax(except the employer's excise) to government only increases consumer price.
4) Paying the corporate employer's excise to government only reduces wages.
5) Paying a vat to government only increases consumer price.
6) Paying retail sales tax to government only increases consumer price
7) Paying sales tax on manufacturers or distributors products to government only increases consumer price.
8) Paying tariffs to government only reduces earnings of foreign producers.
Many many ASSUMPTIONs of convenience and ideological bent, rather than rules arising from evaluation of market behaviours or empirical analysis of economic data:
| Tax Incidence, Tax Burden, and Tax Shifting Who Really Pays the Tax
Inconsistent Attribution and Sloppy Theory. Furthermore, the conventions used in tax analysis are often inconsistent from one tax to the next and fail to do a good job of demonstrating even the initial incidence of the taxes. In standard JCT burden tables, and in Treasury and CBO analytical work, consumption taxes are usually assumed to be “passed forward” to consumers in the form of higher prices. *** Snip *** Meanwhile, income taxes and other taxes on factors are assumed to be “passed backwards” to workers and owners of capital in the form of lower take-home pay and after-tax incomes from saving and investing. *** Snip *** Customs fees are an exception to this pattern. They are consumption taxes but are assumed (by the Treasury) to be borne by the suppliers of the foreign labor and capital that produced them. Consumption taxes, such as a retail sales tax, a VAT, or excise taxes, whether imposed on consumers or on manufacturers, are routinely described as being paid by consumers in the form of higher prices because it is assumed that consumers are less flexible than producers, so that consumer prices increase by an amount equal to the tax, with none of the tax borne by the producers of the taxed goods. It is as if the supply of goods and services were totally elastic, such that production would dwindle to zero if there were any reduction in the price received by the producers, so the consumers must foot the entire bill. *** Snip *** The distribution of the corporate income tax is so uncertain that it is left out of most burden tables but is thought to be borne mainly by either shareholders (at least in the short run) or workers (in the long run, as capital adapts). These taxes are described as if workers, savers, and investors offered their labor and capital in totally inelastic supply, undiminished in quantity, when the tax cuts their compensation. It is assumed that they make no demand for an increase in compensation in response to the tax, so they swallow the entire burden of the income and other factor taxes that they pay. *** Snip *** In effect, the analysts pretend that producers can shift consumption taxes onto their customers but must absorb income taxes placed on their own earnings. Supply is infinitely elastic and infinitely inelastic at the same time. This is an inconsistent approach to tax shifting that is at odds with both economic theory and real-world experience. In addition, neither approach deals with any further adjustments that occur in the real world when taxes are imposed and resources are shifted in response from one use to another. |
What "gross specified contract" would that be exactly?...I'm self-employed so it doesn't matter to me anyway.
Sustain profits?...I'm sorry, maybe I misunderstood. Isn't the whole idea of the sales tax supposed to eliminate business taxes to increase their profit(s) by shifting their tax burden directly to the consumers? What do they want...blood?
The point you're trying to avoid by posting your irrelevant spam is the paper I posted was written by the authors of the fairtax to dispel some fairtax myths...
I'd say their intent is very clear....
[38] This is not the end of the advantages, however. Our family's disposable income would probably go up by the 7.65 percent employer payroll tax.A taxpayer who is in a 28 percent bracket, and pays a 15.3 percent payroll tax, would have to earn $177,000 to purchase a home of $100,000
If we properly consider the buyer to pay the "employer share" of the payroll tax, or the buyer is a small business person, we will reduce further by $97,335 the amount our family has to earn to make just the interest payments over the course of the loan.
Your usual AFT tact of shooting the messenger won't help your case.
You figure you'll get a takehome pay increase over the gross specified by contract if a business sees better ways to sustain profits? LOL, I got a bridge to sell you. Better you I would suggest you make yourself very indispensible if you figure on getting that raise.Funny, I didn't see LewisLynn doing any figuring in that post. It looked like Mastromarco and Burton were doing all the figuring.
When lacking empirical measurements, "economists generally believe"Welcome to the Wacky World of Academic Economics. It's a wonder you put so much stock in what these guys say. Oh, right, I forgot, your economists have it all figured out. They use an economagical model that tells precisely what the economy will be doing on any given date in the future.
8 magic assumptions by economists about dollars paid to government by businesses:
1) Paying corporate income tax to government only reduces shareholders capital/earnings, and wages, but never increases consumer price.
2) Paying corporate property taxes to government only reduces shareholder capital/earnings and wages.
3) Paying any excise tax(except the employer's excise) to government only increases consumer price.
4) Paying the corporate employer's excise to government only reduces wages.
5) Paying a vat to government only increases consumer price.
6) Paying retail sales tax to government only increases consumer price
7) Paying sales tax on manufacturers or distributors products to government only increases consumer price.
8) Paying tariffs to government only reduces earnings of foreign producers.
8 magic assumptions by economistsFairTaxers about dollars paid to government by businesses:
- Paying corporate income tax to government
onlynever reduces shareholders capital/earnings, and wages, butneveronly increases consumer price.- Paying corporate property taxes to government
onlynever reduces shareholder capital/earnings and wages, it only increases consumer prices.- Paying any excise tax (
exceptincluding the employer's excise) to government only increases consumer price.- Paying the corporate employer's excise to government
onlynever reduces wages, it only increases consumer prices.- Paying a VAT to government only increases consumer price (and it was invented by the French).
- Paying retail sales tax to government only increases consumer price
- Paying sales tax on manufacturers or distributors products to government only increases consumer price.
- Paying tariffs to government
onlynever reduces earnings of foreign producers, it only increases consumer prices.
It looked like Mastromarco and Burton were doing all the figuring.
And stating the same generic assumptions as most economists do when not using econometric measures, relying on stock assumptions instead.
"economists generally believe"
Welcome to the Wacky World of Academic Economics. It's a wonder you put so much stock in what these guys say.
If you ever bother to note, I tend to put more reliance on studies rooted in empirical measure rather than convention or assumptions, such as Jorgenson's IGEMs. Comes from my background in engineering modeling, and tends to incline me to put more weight on an econometric analysis as opposed to the more qualitatively based analysis relying on the standard conventions and general assumptions as a substitute for measurement.
They use an economagical model that tells precisely what the economy will be doing on any given date in the future.
Hardly, however an empirically based model has abit more going for it in making relative comparisons, than economists pontificating on subjective determinations with there stock set of absurd and contradictory presumptions pointed out in #477.
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.