Posted on 05/12/2005 12:25:08 AM PDT by FairOpinion
I claim that compliance under any tax system is a problem and an NRST is no worse than the tax system is currently in place.And provide no "empirical data" to support that claim.
I'm basing mine on the observation that it is easier for government to monitor a small number of retail businesses for compliance to a retail sales tax, than to monitor an entire nation of individuals to assure they are all reporting income on which they are liable for taxes.Where is the "empirical data" to verify this "observation"?
There can be NO doubt with the difference in just number of tax collection points, focusing enforcement efforts on less than a tenth as many tax filing entities, government will be able to hold the line on total loss of dollars due to evasion.If it's such a sure thing than the "empirical data" should be easy to find. Let's see it. So far we've had just claims and might be's.
That being the case enforcement could be totally focused on large businesses, completely ignoring small self-employed and single proprietors who are documented as the primary culprits in tax evasion under most tax systems and particularly documented as such in the U.S., and still do as well as the current system. That is especially true considering the largest businesses comprise less than 20% of the number of business entities subject to collecting NRST and make up over 80% of dollar sales volume on which NRST is collectable.Irrelevant. You haven't shown that fewer "collection points" mean better compliance. You also assume that the retailer would be the only source of noncompliance. Any person with a business-use certificate could cheat the system. For that matter, any person with an internet connection could cheat the system by ordering from out of the country.
I'd say the inference that compliance will be at least as good in percent of GDP dollars as the current system is well justified.What a shock! Provide no relevant data and conclude that your assumption is well justified. And I'm sure all the FairTaxers will agree with you.
Like the old days, his antics serve the NRST supporters well by bumping threads and making pro-nrst points. Myopia ya know.
Must be feeling especially insecure this morning - 3 ad hominems already. Truly pitiful.
I hope someone listens to you on this fundamental and extremely important point. They never listen to me. These types of fundamental comments usually get me the cold shoulder since questions that emanate from there are usually ones that folks can't answer.
Must be feeling especially insecure this morning - 3 ad hominems already. Truly pitiful.You either need to look up what ad hominem means or learn to count.
He heh heh he
PD!!
Welcome back, man. Where the heck have you been? We need you to help us slap around the guardians of the status quo.
"Not one person who we encountered as we traveled the country told us that our current tax system was good for America and that we should leave it alone," said the commission's chairman, former GOP. Sen. Connie Mack of Florida.
That tells me that Lewis Lynn has not communicated with the Commission.
Heck - I've been feeshun. A guy's gotta do what's important - aside from help folks understand the FairTax. It's good to be back, though I've been doing some lurking.
Your #88 is REALLY funny, BTW!!
In your original post #20 you said with great forcefulness that “every member” on the panel “had issues” (whatever that might mean since it is exceedingly vague) with the NRST and compliance.That's because my recollection is that every member expressed concerns but I don't know of a way to verify that independently. I thought that it would be better to modify my statement considering I was basing it on memory.
In any event, you then made the completely unsupported allegation that compliance was the “Achilles Heel” of the FairTaxRead any non-AFT source on the subject.
and that the presenter of the writeup to the panel was “never able” to give a reasonable answer.The presenter was Tom Wright and he just repeated the AFT's position on compliance which doesn't give a reasonable answer to the issue.
But to continue on with your credibility problems, in your #39 response to the observation that the income tax had a very high compliance problem that was something like 20-25%, you attempted to claim that the correct figure was 15-17% along with the pointless remark “... some more than others ...” apparently attempting to infer the FairTax was somehow a major problem in this regard (I don’t think so) when you claimed to have somehow “proven” the approximation I gave was incorrect. It was not as at least 2 on this thread have pointed out to you but is instead a close approximation which I personally think is low.I wasn't aware that the IRS numbers didn't include illegal activity. My bad. But I'm not sure how illegal activity is relevant considering a NRST wouldn't tax it either.
The fact that the tax is collected at one point in the chain is, if anything, most likely an advantage since the responsibility for its collection is clearly knownThis is contrary to most of the opinions I've read in the literature. And you are making a "completely unsupported allegation" that the collection point is the only place noncompliance could occur.
With the tax systems you seem to favor - VAT or flat - there are actually many more opportunities for evasion and noncompliance than with the FairTaxBut the potential loss is less with each collection point and there are two records of each transaction.
partly because there are so many decentralized points in any such system and the marginal gains are greater in addition to outright fraud by falsifying invoices, etc. which can benefit both parties.The marginal gain is not greater with a VAT. A business could only gain the difference between the tax they've paid and whatever they were able to gain by falsifying invoices. With a NRST, a business could gain the entire tax due on a product or they were able to gain by falsifying invoices (the FairTax allows businesses to submit invoices for reimbursement of sales tax).
though, of course, since you choose to be so “clever” that you will not identify the specific system you preferHow specific do you want me to be? Jeez...
I can think that perhaps it may very well be that your preferred system is even worse in that regard.Have you read any of the literature on the issue?
That apparently is your fear in not identifying or perhaps it is just a more convenient artifice for your flip-flopping to the attack du jour.I have identified which systems I prefer. This is just a straw man.
But back to credibility. In post #28 you make another completely unsupported allegation that “... the NRST is the worst of them all ...” referring to compliance.Let me rephrase. In my opinion, the NRST is the worst of them all.
As an aside, in #35, I wonder just how much your “guarantee” of the panel’s report.This is not a complete sentence. What are you trying to say?
In view of your difficulties with credibility problems,My credibility problems? You've made numerous statement without any support. Probably more than you are claiming I have. Are you sure you don't have a credibility problem?
you may be very surprised as you seem to have missed the growing and wide support for the FairTax once citizens understand what it really is.The FairTax has wide support? Again, you make a statement without any "empirical data." It just so happens that the Tax Foundation released a poll on tax last month. When asked "If you could choose one plan to collect all federal taxes, of these listed, which federal tax plan would you prefer?" 37% said "A flat-rate income tax with no deductions", 25% said "Not sure", 19% said "The current graduated income tax with deductions", and 19% said "A national sales tax."
the 20-25% IRS number which you tried to claim was not a fact but which at least 2 on this thread have pointed out is, in fact, a factAnother logical fallacy. You haven't shown that your 20-25% number is fact -- only that the number the IRS provided isn't. Your credibility is declining with every sentence.
You chose a non-response by saying something like “common sense, mostly”. Very funny and if you were at all familiar with the VAT as implemented among our Euro-friends and the considerable logistic and evasion problems there along with the ease of political tampering since they invariably have exemptions and/or income tax components, you would offer something more concrete than the common sense remark.Yet another logical fallacy. The compliance issues of a VAT have nothing to do with the compliance issues of a NRST.
There are indeed was of compliance checking with the FairTax and they are typically nopt so intrusive as the VAT/flat tax forms. Several states presently have sales tax audits where they audit around a given retailerSo other businesses that supply a retailer will be open for audit even though they owe no tax? This is your solution?
and there are other methods as wellConsidering your first seems pretty draconian, maybe we could get some specifics of these unnamed "other methods."
and those systems don’t even pretend to get to the underground economyYou got me there. The FairTax is the only system I know of that pretends to get to the underground economy.
If anything, collecting the tax at one point (and very few points to boot relative the VAT/flat problem) is an advantage over your apparently preferred system.Again, claim without support.
In your post #49 you attempt to back out of your overly-extravagant statement of #20 by claiming “... many of the panel members ...”. Once again, dishonesty perhaps rears its ugly head since #30 clearly states “every member” and it isI've explained my reason. you will accept it or you won't. [I guess the latter.]
it is hardly irrelevant since you are the one making all the assertions (unsupported) that your preferred tax forms are superior with regard to evasion/complianceI have provided support for these claims previously. If I have time I will compile a reading list for you so you can get up to speed on the issue.
that your preferred tax forms are superior with regard to evasion/compliance - and all without specifically identifying them.FLAT OR VAT. I have identified them numerous times yet you keep claiming I haven't. Credibility.
Credibility, indeed (or really lack of it).Indeed.
Moving right along, in #52 you again try to alter your original statement and pretend to not know what a writeup might be which should be clear since we are discussing the Tax Panel.Maybe you can't point me to the Tax Panel member's writeup so I understand what you are talking about.
Show us in these Tax Panel presentations where “all members” said any such thing about FairTax compliance.What presentations? I listened to the panel's questions on CSPAN. Again, my recollection is that every panel member expressed concerns but memories are faulty and I don't know of a way to verify my memory. That is why I modified my statement.
The tas form you support is highly relevant since it is you who have made an unsupported attack on the FairTax compliance and that, to be honestly viewed, must be contrasted with a specific tax bill whether VAT or flat.It is not relevant no matter how you try to make it so. But if you would like to make a comparison, the VAT is closest to the NRST. Compare away. [Don't forget to support your claims.]
Which plan do you support? That of Charles McClure of that of Michael Graetz?Neither.
Or can you link us to some other specific VATplan or bill before Congress?No I can't. What does that matter? [The logical fallacies just keep coming.]
In #71 anc #73 you morph your original statement a bit more. Whoa, Nellie!!Claims without support...
Straighten up your act, man.Excuse me if I don't take suggestions from you about "credibility" and "straightening up my act" seriously. You really have no ground to stand on.
"Why is it you refuse to identify the specific type of tax plan you back rather than hide behind the general penumbra of "VAT" or "flat"? Is it, perhaps, because the flavor of plan you prefer will not hold up to scrutiny if you're specific?"
That is pretty standard for the flat taxers. They all seem to support a concept, not a specific, documented proposal. Many of them, for example, don't even understand that the leading flat tax proposal in the house, the Burgess bill, is adding a flat tax option to the current 60,000 page mess.
Looks like it's also a standard of the "VAT taxers". I've never seen the poster in #90 identify any specifics of his favored VAT plan. He may realize that any specific such plan is not supportable.
He too only supports the "VAT tax concept" but would then have a fallback to a "flat tax concept". No doubt that's just a debating ploy with him since he can then freely do his bobbing and weaving whereas with something like the FairTaX which is public in detail in the form of two freely available bills (HR25 and S25 on the www.thomas.loc.gov website) he can then take potshots like some of the other anti-NRST or anti-FairTax advocates.
It's interesting that the VAT tax form is so low on the radar screen that the Tax Foundation study he cites doesn't even mention it. That speaks for itself. As we continue to help people become aware of the FairTax, polls like that will continue to build as people become more knowledegable about the benefits of it.
If you check the public's responses to the Tax Panel, very few have responded favorably to a VAT, some have commented favorably on a "flat tax" (though it is not clear that they know anything beyond the concept), and many have indicated the FairTax by name or bill number indicate that they are familiar with it and like it.
I think that those commenting favorably on the flat tax concept will be quite unhappy when they look into what the concept as presented in more specific form really means. Most, however, do not stop to think it is still an income tax and does nothing to minimize the easy political manipulation and that our present income tax started as a "flat tax" too. With any form of VAT, I think the American public (as represented, hopefully, by our politicians) would not fall into the trap of endorsing what the other VAT countries have fallen into.
"The fairtax bunch is not proposing services taxes as far as I know."
Incorrect. The FairTax taxes all goods and services acquired for personal consumption.
"But some more than others. The NRST is the worst of them all."
For the benefit of others on the thread, YN has previously expressed concerns that black marketeers will sell consummables off the backs of their trucks in the parking lots of malls and that that will be significant enough to drive legitimate retailers out of business and will prove impossible for law enforcement to control.
That is the perspective he brings to this issue in order to arrive at such an irrational conclusion.
For the benefit of others on the thread, YN has previously expressed concerns that black marketeers will sell consummables off the backs of their trucks in the parking lots of malls and that that will be significant enough to drive legitimate retailers out of business and will prove impossible for law enforcement to control.Maybe you would like to point out the post where I "expressed concerns that black marketeers will sell consumables off the backs of their trucks in the parking lots of malls and that that will be significant enough to drive legitimate retailers out of business and will prove impossible for law enforcement to control."
Looks like it's also a standard of the "VAT taxers". I've never seen the poster in #90 identify any specifics of his favored VAT plan. He may realize that any specific such plan is not supportable.This is getting to be a refrain. Exactly what specifics do you want?
He too only supports the "VAT tax concept" but would then have a fallback to a "flat tax concept".Actually I support the flat tax concept but would then have a fall back to a VAT tax concept.
No doubt that's just a debating ploy with him since he can then freely do his bobbing and weaving whereas with something like the FairTaX which is public in detail in the form of two freely available bills (HR25 and S25 on the www.thomas.loc.gov website) he can then take potshots like some of the other anti-NRST or anti-FairTax advocates.Yeah, lucky me. It's a good thing specifics don't matter at this stage in the game.
Most, however, do not stop to think it is still an income tax and does nothing to minimize the easy political manipulation and that our present income tax started as a "flat tax" too.The flat tax is a consumption tax.
With any form of VAT, I think the American public (as represented, hopefully, by our politicians) would not fall into the trap of endorsing what the other VAT countries have fallen into.All 130+ of them! Economic disasters, every last one of them! Oh, the horror...the horror!
Perhaps you could explain to us how your "preferred VAT" tax system would have any different experience that some of the links given in this post - and these are but a few of the countries with actual VAT implementations going.
You will notice that they typically are rife with exceptions and exemptions and also usually have some form of income tax also. How is it that the "Nightmare VAT" (let's call it) would be any different.
A VAT is a CRAPPY idea!!
"Every member of the panel yesterday said they had issues with a NRST and compliance..."
That isn't true; Senator Mack, in fact, argued in our favor on the compliance issue, if memory serves. He certainly didn't add to the concern expressed by other panelists.
More to the point, however, is that compliance is exactly where you would expect them to focus if they were convinced of the economic merits of the proposal. This is, as we have acknowledged, a MAJOR change in the way the federal government raises its revenues. A sales tax raises different compliance challenges than an income tax certainly. That does not mean that they are greater and it certainly does not mean they are insurmountable. The Commission is taking its responsibilities seriously, as well they should.
The next hearing BTW has been announced. Its subject will be the implications of the federal government no longer requiring personal tax returns, I believe. Hmmmmm .... I wonder why they would be considering that. If I were a flat taxer, I would NOT view that as an encouraging area of investigation.
Of course, I am sure that they will have panelists testifying that the federal government cannot possibly function without requiring such blatant disregard for our personal liberties. I can "almost guarantee" that YN will spin that as the death knell for the FairTax.
LOL!! Life is good (if you are a liberty loving FairTaxer)
-------------------------------------------------------
He too only supports the "VAT tax concept" but would then have a fallback to a "flat tax concept".
1. Actually I support the flat tax concept but would then have a fall back to a VAT tax concept.
No doubt that's just a debating ploy with him since he can then freely do his bobbing and weaving whereas with something like the FairTaX which is public in detail in the form of two freely available bills (HR25 and S25 on the www.thomas.loc.gov website) he can then take potshots like some of the other anti-NRST or anti-FairTax advocates.
Yeah, lucky me. It's a good thing specifics don't matter at this stage in the game.
------------------------------------------------------
Actually this is an example of your "cred" problem since in an earlier post you said just the opposite:
GOP Discusses National Sales Tax 12-01-2004
"I would prefer a VAT, but the flat tax would be better than the FairTax in a lot of ways."
535 posted on 12/03/2004 8:19:42 AM MST by Your Nightmare
So it seems your "claim du jour" is merely a dishonest artifice for debating purposes. Actually specifics do matter since your Nightmare VAT might help all those other countries and solidify the EU to boot.
Actually you don't seem to realize that ANY of the common tax forms at issue here (NRST, Flat, & VAT) can be DEFINED to be a "consumption tax" especially if one is one of those "two-armed economists" that Harry Truman didn't care for. That doesn't mean that is works out that way in practice as post #97 shows.
If you want a real laugh, go look at some of his posts on global warming.
Indeed they should
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1402489/posts?page=34#34
The laugh is on those that believe climate change has much of anything to do with mankind's presence on this planet or that mankind is likely to have much of any effect at all on global temperatures the in either the short or the long run.
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.