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???
Very nice post, p_w!
That particular poster does not even admit that there are any tax cost components embedded into prices currently, so realisim cannot be said to be part of his agenda.
And of these examples you cite they were all hauled into court to redress the grievances. Seems fair to me.
I have no doubt, though, that there were many other businesses who did not function that way (and I worked for several of them - large and small).
It's still unclear to me what you think your examples have to do with the exapmple you first cited - or with ANY tax system (let alone the FairTax). I see nothing there unique to the FairTax situation, but just some illustrations of unfairness under the present tax system.
Ohh ... I see; it's true because you say it is eh?? You must have swallowed the whole Blarney Stone.
It's easy enough to see that the posts that were refuted were just you passing gas in church. Little substance, but lots of odor. The very pieces you posted from, when read with any understanding, clearly do exactly the opposite of what you claim.
And as for giving you sources, many posters have clearly noticed long ago that you accept only certain sources that you think are "OK" which, of course, means only SQL sources except where you can attempt to morph things by OOC quotes. You've been given such quotes before and there are even some in the material you used for your dishonest OOC attempts. You fool very few except for a few newcomers - and they'll catch on very quickly.
BTW, Nightie, I don't see hundreds of YOUR pals jumping on the bandwagon with you. Maybe you have too small a bandwagon, eh?
Ohh ... I see; it's true because you say it is eh??I didn't say anything. I posted numerous quotes from an array of economists, including the authors of the FairTax, that all say the same thing. That, under a NRST, either consumer prices and take home wages stay the same, or consumer prices and take home wages rise.
It's easy enough to see that the posts that were refuted were just you passing gas in church. Little substance, but lots of odor. The very pieces you posted from, when read with any understanding, clearly do exactly the opposite of what you claim.BS. You are too far gone to admit when you are wrong.
And as for giving you sources, many posters have clearly noticed long ago that you accept only certain sources that you think are "OK" which, of course, means only SQL sources except where you can attempt to morph things by OOC quotes. You've been given such quotes before and there are even some in the material you used for your dishonest OOC attempts. You fool very few except for a few newcomers - and they'll catch on very quickly.Post whatever you got. Let's see them.
Ah, I see. The new tax is actually going to be hidden in the price already? Nice. No hidden taxes, huh? Just include it in the price. Wonder what else they'll be able to simply slide in there without the consumer realizing?
Maybe you should contact fairtax.org and have them correct their answer for FAQ #47, then. Even there, it plainly states "You earn $100. You keep $100. Choose to spend $77. FAIR TAX RATE 30% Gov't gets $23"
If this a true National Sales Tax, why not quote it as a Sales Tax? How is it tax relief if everyone will be paying the same in taxes and in some cases, more? How much will be added to the budget to pay for the mega-beauracracy that will be needed at each state and at the Federal level for the Adminstering Authority?
I like the way the bill eleminates the IRS and all the troublesome paperwork and reporting; "Sec.406. General Adminstrative Matters. (a) In General. -- The Secretary and each sales tax adminstering authority may employ such persons as may be necessary for the admninstration of this subtitle and may delegate to employees the authority to conduct interviews, hearings, prescribe rules, promulgate regulations and perform such other duties as are required by this subtitle." Sounds like the beginning of a monster equivalent to or worse than the IRS to me.
"SEC.501.MONTHLY REPORTS AND PAYMENTS. (a) Tax Reports and Filing Dates -- (1) In General -- On or before the 15th day of each month, each person who is -- (A) liable to collect and remit tax imposed by this subtitle by reason of section 103(a), or (B) liable to pay tax imposed by this subtitle which is not collected pursuant to section 103(a), shall submit to the appropriate sales tax adminstering authority (in a form prescribed by the Secretary) a report relating to the previous calender month.
It goes on to list just what all is to be all of these reports.
Also within this section under section (g), after defining Large and Small sellers, we find (g) SECURITY REQUIREMENTS -- A large seller (within the meaning of subsection (e)(3)) shall be required to provide security in an amount equal to the greater of $100,000 or one and one-half times the seller's average monhtly tax liability during the previous 6 calender months. Security may be a cash bond, a bond from a surety company approved by the Secretary, a certificate of deposit, or a State or United States Treasury Bond. ..... Failure to provide security in accordance with this section shall result in revocation of the seller's section 502 registration.
Nice and easy, no records, no paperwork, just less cost for everyone on everything. So, we'll go to the counter and buy a one dollar item, pay the Fairtax rate of 30% (as quoted at fairtax.org), send 23 cents off to the government (if it remains that low) and end up having an item that used to cost maybe 50 cents or so, before companies had to add in increased administrative, labor and compliance costs, not to mention wishing to still be profitable enough to pay shareholders. Such a deal
Again, I'll keep saying, if you want real tax reform, force Congress to cut back on excessive spending. Then, we could have a really fair National Sales Tax rate that wouldn't be anywhere near your 23% or fairtax.orgs quoted 30%.
I'm still waiting for one of you supporters of this white elephant to tell us all what the rate will be for the years after it's first year implementation of 2007.
You disn't say anything??? Really???
Clearly you just said "... that it has been shown conclusively that your claims are baseless ..." so that certainly qualifies as "anything" (but not much).
That is merely another of your attempted deceptions and you certainly have shown no such thing. Your OOC postings have been shown to be the nonsense they truly are, and they'd BETTER stick pretty much to the same line since that's what they were specifically selected and highlighted to show - and by you. Even then I have shown that they are seriously flawed.
Your insistence that no one is right but Nightie is childish and goes a long way toward explaining why most FReepers will not post to you. It's pointless debating with a child who is always the only correct person on the thread. Very few of the FReepers are willing to put up with your nonsense. You may even notice that most people ignore you since they can stomach neither your attitude nor your inane posts.
And despite your claims to the contrary you have been given data that shows prices dropping and wages rising with the FairTax. Your pretense to the contrary is total nonsense. You merely won't accept it since it's from the "wrong" source. I've already told you I won't waste my time doing that and I'd be surprised if anyone else would - but perhaps someone might enjoy the humor of it all in trying to discuss anything with you.
You're the one who specified the "$1 item", not me. I was showing how much tax applied to that "$1 item". If you mis-defined it, that's your problem.
"You earn $100. You keep $100." Do you have some bone to pick with that??? Perhaps you'd rather have payroll and income tax withheld???
The FAIR TAX RATE you specify which is quoted as 30% for purposes of calculating the sales tax at it normally is calculated. In fact, the rate is calculated from the rate specified in the bill which is 23% which is t.i. (29.87 t.e.). The best rate to use depends upon the intended use.
The rate is not "hidden" in the price at all, but is clearly shown on the receipt.
"How is it tax relief if everyone will be paying the same in taxes and in some cases, more." I certainly don't know what you mean ... do you??? You can't be as stupid as that seems to indicate ... or can you??
Sec. 406 has nothing to do with the IRS. The IRS is eliminated elsewhere in the bill - which obviously you haven't read very thoroughly.
You post about Sec. 501 and say:
"It goes on to list just what all is to be all of these reports.". Had you gone on to read what was involved you'd see that the extremely large, complicated, bureaucratic report you're trying to pretend is there is nothing but about a 2 line report. Big deal!!! And the merchant is well paid to do that (which you also probably didn't read either).
Go off the deep end on your ravings elsewhere - or go post to Nightie since you seem to be birds of a feather. If you'd like to read the bill with some understanding and return and ask some genuine questions instead of trying to play "gotcha", you'd get a lot more informative answers from any of several posters.
Do you think you're the first attacker that has tried such horse-puckey??? Not by a long shot, pal. The FairTax threads have been going for 7 or 8 years or maybe more and a lot of your type have passed through on their way to nowhere. You make no sense and until you do you will certainly get few answers to any real questions you might have (if any).
Great documentation!
In regard to taxes on articles of consumption, they:
”__ may be compared to a fluid, which will in time find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be by his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his own resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions__ It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit, which can not be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue__” see:No. 21 of the Federalist
Surely there is a clear enough distinction between such foods as caviar and chicken eggs, between wine and milk, between silk and cotton underwear, between a Chevy Nova and BMW to truthfully say one is a luxury and the other a necessity and allow every one to contribute by carefully selecting what they purchase and the taxes imposed by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions
The truth is my friend, as our founding fathers practiced, a consumption tax plan ought to be limited to articles of luxury, and each article must be individually selected by Congress, and then the appropriate amount of tax determined for each specific item chosen, just as was done in THE FIRST REVENUE RAISING ACT FOR OUR COUNTRY!
NOTE: those interested may use the PREV IMAGE and NEXT IMAGE buttons at the above link to study the bill___it is refreshing to study statesmen creating a revenue raising bill beneficial for America’s businesses, industries and labor force, as opposed to politicians acting in their own self interest and on behalf of internationalists who have no allegiance to America or any nation [the NAFTA CAFTA CROWD] ! [1]
JWK
And tell me, what provision. is it in H.R. 25 which would prohibit a future Congress from calculating a tax from all corporate and individual income, payrolls, self-employment earnings, capital gains, estates and gifst ”? We are told H.R. 25 does this, now what provision guarantees it, how may it be enforced and a future Congress forbidden to calculate such a tax? .
The salience is this, that "Fair" (National Retail Sales) Tax advocates say that abolition of the income tax will result in higher takehome pay for employees. I said that employers would attempt to recoup the "gross-up", i.e. the withholding, and withhold it for their own accounts. I showed by example the truth of Milton Friedman's flat statement (appeal to his authority, supported with examples of my own when challenged) that employers will always, always attempt to cut pay in order improve their own results -- and I supplied the motive, quoting my old boss: "because I want the money."
Ergo, the claim by NRST advocates that abolition of income taxes and the withholding system will result in higher takehome pay, is dubious at best and very likely false.
To continue wasting my time with you, I'd like to know how you intend to fit the following on a "2 line report,"
(2)Contents of Report. -- The report required under paragraph (1) shall set forth -- (A) The Gross payments referred to in section 101, (B) the tax collected under chapter 4 in connection with such payments, (C) the amount and type of any credit claimed, and (D) other information reasonably required by the Secretary or the sales tax adminstering authority for the administration, collection, and remittance of the tax imposed by this subtitle.
It's little wonder you wish to see this tax imposed, you aren't very good at old fashioned arithmetic, are you? You say it's only a "2 line report," but the bill HR 25 requires 12 lines to state what is to go into those 2 lines? That's government effeciency if I ever heard it.
Each seller will be required these reports and they must be submitted on time or penalties might acrue if too late. Currently, retailers don't have these monthly reports to submit in this manner, although they do have others to report, quarterly, I believe most are. The IRS is disbanded, but there is now a new beauracracy in place to collect and administer this new reporting, monitor the bond required of large sellers (another point you ignored), ensure no one is cheating on this sales tax (as enforcement was also mentioned in the bill) and you don't see where this could lead. Instead, you wish to engage in ad hominum.
As for I earn $100 and I keep $100, what good is it if the price of everything, that you claim is supposed to come down, is raised to include taxes that are hidden in with the price? Is including it in the price supposed to make it less painful when I now pay a dollar for what a few months ago cost me 50 cents plus 7 per cent sales tax? Does that mean that now, when state sales tax is added on, what I did pay 54 cents for at the counter, may now end up costing me at the counter a dollar seven? Sounds to me like I'll need a real good pay increase to keep up with all my savings.
Like I said earlier, currently, I don't pay income tax on purchases. Yes, there are a few taxes added in along the way, especially excise and such. Still, none of them amount to a 30% add on at the counter. You all assume businesses will greatly lower prices across the board. Have you bought gas lately? The barrels of crude bought today at a high price won't show up at the pumps for another month or two, yet, the price at the pump jumps as soon as the price of crude does. Buy any cars lately? Do you actually believe every Walmart commercial that says they are constantly lowering prices? After all the years of them lowering their prices, why isn't everything in the chain free yet?
I'm beginning to see why you fell for this white elephant, the same thing that has misled the masses for a long time. Someone tells you there is a new tax and someone else will pay the bulk of it, not you. Yeah, right. That's why the phone tax placed on the wealthy in 1898 is now being charged to every last one of us, 107 years later.
I'll repeat myself once again. All this is doing is maintaining the staus quo, it just changes how moneis are collected to give away to Uncle Sugar for him to throw around and waste as he sees fit. Force the government to spend our money responsibly, then we can do away with the IRS, truly eleminate wasteful paperwork and go to a consumption tax possibly as low as 10%, a real 10%, not some hocus pocus percentage hidden in the price of goods that is actually higher at the retail counter.
You earn $100. You keep $100." Do you have some bone to pick with that???
Yes. If I earn $100 and keep $100 and wish to buy something for $77, I don't want it costing me $100.
Spare me your childish tantrums. Any questioning of your precious plan is automatically deemed rantings, ravings or attacks. That tactic is right out of the Liberal Handbook.
If you opened your eyes, you'd see that there are quite a few that have serious and legitimate concerns about this plan. Like many other plans that have been put into place, too many don't realize the potential harm until it's too late. Maybe you should read something besides the supportive propaganda on this plan.
Many of us live in the real world, not the assumed and hopeful realm of wishful thinking.
And despite your claims to the contrary you have been given data that shows prices dropping and wages rising with the FairTax. Your pretense to the contrary is total nonsense. You merely won't accept it since it's from the "wrong" source. I've already told you I won't waste my time doing that and I'd be surprised if anyone else would - but perhaps someone might enjoy the humor of it all in trying to discuss anything with you.LOL! The classic Fanboy response.
"Of course the data's out there. blah. blah. You've seen it many time before. blah. blah. I'm not going to waste my time and post it. blah. blah. blah..."
Very well stated!
In an article titled ANSWERING A FAIR TAX QUESTION Neal Boortz wrote:
“It doesn't matter that paying taxes will be voluntary under the Fair Tax plan. It doesn't matter that nobody pays the retail sales tax on the basic necessities of life.”
But the truth is, all consumers pay the tax on the basic necessities of life under the so called fair tax, and, the authors of the tax plan concoct what they call a “family consumption allowance”, a monthly check available to each American household,which is intended to be earmarked by each consumer to offset taxes paid on the basic necessities of life.
In essence, the so called fair tax rations tax-free basic necessities of life, and rations them by the size of the family consumption allowance allotted to each family.
Instead of making countless American families dependant on a monthly government subsistence check [family consumption allowance], and ration tax-free basic necessities, why don’t the architects of the so called fair tax simply prohibit taxing the necessities of life [food, shelter, clothing, medical expenses, etc]?
Perhaps Hamilton explains why in Federalist Paper 79
“A POWER OVER A MAN”s SUBSISTENCE AMOUNTS TO A POWER OVER HIS WILL.
Could it be that the architects of the so called fair tax intentionally want to make every American Family dependant upon government for its subsistence?
The Fair Tax would, if adopted, demand the less fortunate people in our society to shamefully kneel to the iron fist of government to receive their monthly government check___ a family consumption allowance which cleverly creates a new army of voters dependent upon folks in government for their subsistence.
If income taxation is abolished as it should be and as H.R.25 gives lip service to, I can assure you our socialists domestic enemies in Congress, such as Ted Kennedy, will greet the family consumption allowance with open arms, which will be used to keep themselves in power by promising to increase that allowance when election time nears, just as is now done with social security, aid to families with dependent children, Pell Grants, Kiddy Care, and you name the item from the available shopping list created by our socialist domestic enemies in Congress, created to buy votes and remain in power.
As to the Boortz assertion that “It doesn't matter that paying taxes will be voluntary under the Fair Tax plan“,such a statement would in fact be unassailable if, and only if, the necessities of life and supplies necessary to conduct business were not taxed under the Fair Tax plan, as our founding father‘s consumption tax intended. But to conclude as Neal Boortz does, one must pretend that starving one’s self to death and the shutting down of America’s businesses and industries is a rational approach for Americans who wish to avoid paying the “voluntary” tax on the necessities of life and supplies necessary to conduct America’s businesses. And so, we list this assertion of Neal’s in the MYTH column where it rightfully belongs.
If those who support H.R.25 were sincere in their efforts, they would demand the removal of defects in H.R. 25 when they are pointed out, which they do not do and suggest their motives may not be as noble as they pretend.
Sincerely,
JWK
___ with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities__ Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address.
And despite your claims to the contrary you have been given data that shows prices dropping and wages rising with the FairTax.Not unless bullsh!t is now considered "data" under the constant Fairtax words have no meaning dictionary.
Oh BTW, the goal of all you Fairtaxers is to be what you despise... a SQL...Think about it.
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.