Posted on 08/03/2005 4:51:43 PM PDT by RobFromGa
A simple question...
So, under the FairTaxI get to keep my whole paycheck, prices for everything I will buy will stay the same even with the taxes included, and I get a prebate check from the govt every month. And businesses pay no taxes.
Where is the extra money coming from...
What is wrong with this reasoning below?
1. Right now the government collects $X in the form of all taxes.
2. All taxes are really paid for by consumers in the end result, either directly, or in the cost of their purchases which allow businesses to collect money in order to pay taxes. Companies do not really pay taxes they jsut collect them and pass them on.
3. The FairTax will collect the same $X per year in the form of taxes but using a different method.
4. Under the FairTax, the price paid for goods will not rise because getting rid of all the taxes built into goods will cause the prices to drop, then the FairTax will add onto the new lower price, resulting in the same price paid by consumers.
5. So, for a given taxpayer, shopping (consumption) will be revenue neutral. Ie. Prices are the same as before.
6. And each given taxpayer will get a "prebate" check every month that they are not getting now.
7. And each taxpayer will pay no taxes on capital gains, or on savings.
8. And, each taxpayer will no longer pay any taxes on income, or payroll taxes.
9. And, there will be no Fair Taxes on any purchases made for a business.
Are these all true so far?
Again, I get to keep my whole paycheck, prices for everything I will buy will stay the same even with the taxes included, and I get a prebate check from the govt every month.
Where is the extra money coming from???
"Also, if you make $ 40,000 per year, do you think:
A. Your employer is going to just stop deducting the taxes withheld from your paycheck,"
You ridiculed your own "b" answer, so one would conclude that you consider "a" the correct option.
If you think your employer will continue to withhold personal income taxes after the Internal Revenue Code is repealed, that begs the question as to what you think he would do with those funds.
(a) continue to remit them to the governemnt even though there is no legal requirement to do so. If this is your answer, please explain what motive he would have for doing so, or
(b) keep them for his business, which is known as fraud.
In either case, it would seem that an employer would be setting himself up for a lawsuit, not to mention some VERY disgruntled employees. Why in the world would any employer want to do that?
Is that your final answer?
You've been given a good bit of such data before, Nightie, but never accept it so it seems unreasonable to keep giving you more that you also won't accept. It's tiresome to hear your repetitive attacks on any and all things FairTax so providing you with more such data to attack is pointless. There are a number of studies that show this - and you know it (but refuse to accept their validity; instead posting the stuff from Brookings Institute, Gale, Bartlett, and others who are also know attackers of the FairTax).
Pretending it is otherwise is the height of something unhealthy it seems to me. You have never acknowledged your own biases.
You certainly like the use of the term "ad hominem" where it doesn't apply, though, I'll grant you that.
And BTW you've never explained to us how the flat tax (hopefully a real one rather than your F. T. 101 theory) will tax the underground economy or how it will help our exporters with border-adjustable taxes - just for starters?
"You will pay 23% on your expenses..."
Which expenses are you referring to? If you meant business expenses, then that is wrong. If you meant personal consumption, then you are right.
You've been given a good bit of such data before, Nightie, but never accept it so it seems unreasonable to keep giving you more that you also won't accept. It's tiresome to hear your repetitive attacks on any and all things FairTax so providing you with more such data to attack is pointless.I have never, ever, seen a quote from an economist, at least one that isn't directly employed by the AFT, that says consumer prices will stay the same while take home pay goes up. Never. If you think it's been provided before, it shouldn't be hard to find. In fact, since it such a point of contention, I would think y'all would want to post it on every thread.
I don't know what kind of audit I would be in for, I am also not planning to rip anyone off.
Imagine this scenario,
A person goes online and purchase an airline ticket from Atlanta, Georgia to Chicago, IL. He checks the little box that says "Business trip- do not collect NRST" and is issued his boarding pass with no NRST collected.
Right now, this expense is tracked, documented and recorded eventually on the business tax returns as an deduction. The paper work is stored and the accounting department handles all this work that I would call "Tax compliance" activities.
Under FairTax:
1. Who will be responsible for checking whether this is a valid business expense?
2. How will they catch it?
3. What will businesses need to do to protect themselves from being called a NRST tax cheat?
4. Will businesses still need a "Tax compliance department" to protect themselves from going to jail?
5. If so, doesn't this negate some of the Fair Tax arguments that a) we get rid of the horrible, all-powerful tax auditing agency (IRS has morphed into something else) and b) that compliance costs under NRST will be cut to zero?
Those are valid questions. Let me answer you.
I don't know.
Section 705 of the act address mixed use property and services, but is not specific on how this will be implemented. The act does say "In all disputes concerning an exemption claimed by a purchaser, if the seller has on file an intermediate sale or export sale certificate from the purchaser and did not have reasonable cause to believe that the certificate was improperly provided by the purchaser with respect to such purchase (within the meaning of section 103), then the burden of production of documents and records relating to that exemption shall rest with the purchaser and not with the seller." So if you give the seller a resell certificate he is off the hook. I assume that like any tax law there will be Treasury regulations that will be issued to tell us how to handle certain facets of the act. Congress has never really put the nuts and bolts in the laws.
But just think about it this way, all of the things you have listed can be abused under the current system, no? There WILL be a paper trail, because you will have given the seller a certificate. I could buy a laptop right now in my business and take it home for my kids to play with and deduct it off my income taxes as business use. Nothing stops me, except the fear of an IRS audit and my conscience. The state sales tax department can audit me too.
see #385
Unless you are talking about hiring him for business (in which case there wouldn't be any Fair Tax charged anyway) the bill specifically states that you have to pay Fair Tax on the wages of your domestic help, which a gardener would be. Therefore, the tax effect would be the same, assuming you paid the guy the same as you paid the lawn care company, and you've just made yourself do paperwork. See Section 2 12 a.
"From what I've seen, it would be absolutely GREAT for everyone, that's what scares me."
Not everyone. There are some losers under the FairTax. These groups come to mind.
1. illegal immigrants - they move from a tax preferenced position to a tax disadvantaged one.
2. Those who have figured out a way to game the current system and pay disproportionately less taxes as a result.
3. Foreign producers - they have been given an advantage over US producers in the global economy - and globalization is a huge force that is sweeping across the planet.
4. Tax preparers and other professionals who make their living helping Americans navigate the incredibly complex system.
5. Lobbyists on K street - they make HUGE $$$ manipulating the Code.
Those are the ones that come to mind off the top of my head.
The private contractor vs. employee debacle goes out the window with the fair tax. Just another benefit getting rid of the BS income tax code.
I think he meant under current tax law.
Karl, I hate to tell you this, but I don't think you are an economist.
What should he have told the caller?
Other losers
Insurance companies who sell the tax-advantage of life insurance and annuities.
Municipal bond owners.
Estate planning attorneys.
Of course they can but fear of an IRS audit is a strong detracting influence.
SOmething I hadn't considered. Under NRST, The government will have much more potential information to go after business expenses because they will see exactly what items are included in each retail purchase that is being charged as a business purchase.
This will be one heckuva database-- every single SKU bought for business including what you had for dinner". They will be able to computerize and cross-reference this vast array of purchases, and ask questions like "Why is that company buying so many file folders, and why do they go to so many dinners out, and I wonder if those baseball tickets were really for customers and ..."
If they choose to get aggressive with this, they will make the IRS look downright friendly. The IRS only sees totals on a sheet of paper and has to ask to see underlying data.
3) would seem to exclude business related expenses from the Fair Tax, as I have been told. I was also told previously by ancient_geezer I think that there would be a card to show to retail locations to bypass the tax for business purposes.
The legislation requires businesses must be registered and sellers are required to maintain a record of NRST certificate of registration and purchases for customers claiming business exemption.
What forms that certificate may take is up to the the Secretary of Treasury to determine on implementation of the NRST.
H.R.25Fair Tax Act of 2005 (Introduced in House) `SEC. 103. RULES RELATING TO COLLECTION AND REMITTANCE OF TAX.
`SEC. 502. REGISTRATION.
`SEC. 509. RECORDS.
|
"LOL! You guys crack me up. That wasn't a body slam. You want to see a body slam?"
Uh huh. Something like saying that we would be sending out a trillion rebate checks a year?
Whatever. I look at positions a la carte. I didn't sign a contract to hold only "approved" positions. And I like to question accepted notions. Thanks.
See #395, is this what Freedom looks like?
And considering that our government uses static models in predicting effects of tax law changes because dynamic models are too risky evne though there is plenty of data to allow its use...RobFromGa, here is a link to a version of the Dale Jorgenson & Peter Wilcoxen paper Boortz mentions as the source (his book is very poorly sourced) for the supposed price drop. You can review it for yourself and determine how reasonable you think it is. Although it's not mentioned in the article, in the calculations for the model, the cost of labor goes down as the personal income & payroll taxes go down. That should tell you something about what's happening to wages in their model.
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.