Posted on 10/12/2005 8:39:34 AM PDT by pigdog
The only way that FairTaxers even debate is to call their opposition things like "daft", to make wagers that the opponent's "living is somehow tied to the income tax", and to suggest that we look to the studies for the answers to all our issues.
The FairTaxers will lost the battle because they continue to misrepresent their plan. In a number of ways.
The biggest misrepresentation is regarding the fact that gross wages will drop.
The second misrepresentation is that the IRS will be dead and Americans will never again need fear the taxman. In reality is that the HappyTax enforcement agents will need to be at least as aggressive as the current IRS is in order to avoid massive evasion of the 30% sales tax.
Another misrepresentation is that there will be huge compliance cost savings to business.
In summary, the HappyTaxers are selling a flawed plan that offers significant risk to the economy and the Treasury.
"...Congress' continual dinkering and redefining income ..."
Your attempt to change the meaning of the post you were responding to (where the word "this" actually referred to the "income" as just shown) is a typical SQL tactic to try to alter what was said. Since the statement related to income redefinition, my response related to that - do away with income-based taxation completely and the "problem" of income redefinition is no longer with us.
With the FairTax any fiddling with the rate (since, keep in mind that income redefinition affects nothing now) affects all taxpayers and not just some subset since keep in mind if there were sufficient votes to pass the bill there are certainly enough to prevent the sort of political mischief that goes on now where rates - and/or other preferences can be hidden from many if not most taxpayers. With the FairTax these sort of alterations are out in the open and quite visible and affect the tax burden (rate) of each taxpayer. They can no longer be buried within thousands and thousands of pages of tax code and regulations in some dark bureaucratic corner. They are made quite apparent.
The public, having passed the bill, is certainly not going to sit idly by to watch being raised by congregational manipulation - and why should they since they can now clearly see that this is the game afoot - which presently is not at all apparent to them since so much of the tax burden is either hidden or indirect from the view of a taxpayer. With the FairTax the tax burden is open, apparent, and directly painful.
There will be greatly more individual motivation to keep the political pressure on to prevent much of this sort of nonsense since the tax effects are now much more direct and apparent to each taxpayer than at present.
"... the original reason for a VAT was due to the cascading effect of transaction/turnover taxes on all business operations (a VAT without purchase credits) ..."
By reading that it should be apparent that VATs were used in an effort to eliminate the cascading effects of the transaction/turnover taxes they replaced - and NO, these replaced taxes were not at all like the FairTax systen, which does not cascade (as does any income-based tax system).
... and I did not say there were 450 refutations - merely that the points were well-refuted by the 450 following posts... and indeed they were.
It seems you did not read the balance of the thread involved nor many of the other threads where these points have been discussed. Many of them are covered within the same thread. And certainly I do not agree with your lists of "winners" and "losers" (though that was not the way you originally referred to those in your lists.
I see no reason to keep repeating answers to you that you obviously do not read or, perhaps, do not understand. I can find plenty of other ways to waste my time.
If you're talking of your casual assessment of federal spending (and the feds "taxing themselves"), though, you might study this:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1131&full=1
If we allow them to ... shame on us.
Very few will do so, actually, since each would only be obtaining a 15% benefit which is actually less than the benenfit of evading payroll taxes presently (let alone any income tax involved).
Should they somehow think the 15% is some sort of windfall, they must balance this with the realization that BOTH parties have now entered into an active defalcation that is punishable by law. They'd do far better to evade present tax laws. Perhaps you're suggesting that they do so; otherwise they'd be suddenly taking up a life of crime for less than then could make at present - which certainly speaks to their stupidity if nothing else.
More balderdash from you, Looey.
Which flat tax bill do you think eliminates "all deductions"??
Aand where can you show a study from an economist that shows them to be revenue neutral? Even Forbes admits that his plan is not.
No - it's actually done by millions, not thousands and those doing the withholding have to pay for the expense of doing so where with the FairTax there are no unfunded mandates and they are paid to collect and report the taxes.
The biggest misrepresentations I have seen are from you in your vanity posts when you make an interpretation of what the book authors mean and then claim it is a lie.
It is no lie but an intentional warping of what was said to suit your own agenda. This clearly indicates you Squirrels realize you've already lost the battle - as well as the debate.
Read the bill, the IRS is eliminated. States will collect the taxes from retailers and already have this ability and use it all the time. And the "massive evasion" you suggest is something that goes on right now under the income tax with the illegal economy ... and it's no doubt far larger than any evasion that would be likely under the FairTax.
And, certainly, there WILL be huge compliance cost savings with the FairTax - from both business AND personal tax standpoints. Something like from $250 to $1,999 Billion IS huge and it's all presently a dead loss to the economy.
You have yet to clearly identify significant flaws or risks from the FairTsax plan.
The fact that you based it on a pre-Bush tax cut number.
The reality is that a revenue neutral calcualation of a sales tax rate, as a percentage of shelf price not gross, works out to be in the range of 23-24% under current conditions.
That 23-24% is equivalent 19-20% tax inclusive, as income taxes are calculated as a percentage proportion of total taxable quantity.
Which flat tax bill do you think eliminates "all deductions"??S1099 elimates all deductions except for an individual deduction that is equal for all.
`(1) IN GENERAL- The deductions specified in this subsection are-- `(A) the cost of business inputs for the business activity, `(B) wages (as defined in section 3121(a) without regard to paragraph (1) thereof) which are paid in cash for services performed in the United States as an employee, and `(C) retirement contributions to or under any plan or arrangement which makes retirement distributions (as defined in section 63(c)) for the benefit of such employees to the extent such contributions are allowed as a deduction under section 404. `(2) BUSINESS INPUTS- `(A) IN GENERAL- For purposes of paragraph (1), the term `cost of business inputs' means-- `(i) the amount paid for property sold or used in connection with a business activity, `(ii) the amount paid for services (other than for the services of employees, including fringe benefits paid by reason of such services) in connection with a business activity, and `(iii) any excise tax, sales tax, customs duty, or other separately stated levy imposed by a Federal, State, or local government on the purchase of property or services which are for use in connection with a business activity. Such term shall not include any tax imposed by chapter 2 or 21. `(B) EXCEPTIONS- Such term shall not include-- `(i) items described in subparagraphs (B) and (C) of paragraph (1), and `(ii) items for personal use not in connection with any business activity. `(C) EXCHANGES- For purposes of this section, the amount treated as paid in connection with the exchange of property or services is the fair market value of the property or services exchanged, plus any money paid. `(e) Special Rules for Financial Intermediation Service Activities- In the case of the business activity of providing financial intermediation services, the taxable income from such activity shall be equal to the value of the intermediation services provided in such activity. `(f) Exception for Services Performed as Employee- For purposes of this section, the term `business activity' does not include the performance of services by an employee for the employee's employer. `(g) Carryover of Credit-Equivalent of Excess Deductions- `(1) IN GENERAL- If the aggregate deductions for any taxable year exceed the gross active income for such taxable year, the credit-equivalent of such excess shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this section for the following taxable year. `(2) CREDIT-EQUIVALENT OF EXCESS DEDUCTIONS- For purposes of paragraph (1), the credit-equivalent of the excess described in paragraph (1) for any taxable year is an amount equal to-- `(A) the sum of-- `(i) such excess, plus `(ii) the product of such excess and the 3-month Treasury rate for the last month of such taxable year, multiplied by `(B) the rate of the tax imposed by subsection (a) for such taxable year. `(3) CARRYOVER OF UNUSED CREDIT- If the credit allowable for any taxable year by reason of this subsection exceeds the tax imposed by this section for such year, then (in lieu of treating such excess as an overpayment) the sum of-- `(A) such excess, plus `(B) the product of such excess and the 3-month Treasury rate for the last month of such taxable year, shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this section for the following taxable year. `(4) 3-MONTH TREASURY RATE- For purposes of this subsection, the 3-month Treasury rate is the rate determined by the Secretary based on the average market yield (during any 1-month period selected by the Secretary and ending in the calendar month in which the determination is made) on outstanding marketable obligations of the United States with remaining periods to maturity of 3 months or less.'.""`(d) Deductions-
And that's even without any real search. There are no doubt more if searched for. The point really is, though, that your "eliminates all deductions" is more of your typical disingenuousness.
There are a number of them and where they are already written into the law it gives the pols plenty of leverage to pick right up where they left off with the present tax system and insert many, many more. It even has the unused carryover notion as part of the law. Having such edeuctions is a poor starting place for any income-based tax.
Of course you don't support this or any other flat tax bill - but only the never-defined Nightmare Flat Tax bill ... right? How convenient.
Sometimes this will happen. More power to them. It happens now sometimes too. Who hasn't asked a contractor what his cash price was? It's always less because they won't report the income and they can pay their employees under the table too which saves on fica, etc. (think embedded, hidden costs, those go down with NRST.) People who make money on tips rarely report all their income either. It will happen, I'm just saying it will be a wash at worst, but probably evasions will go down.
But think about it. Who can provide goods more cheaply, Walmart, or back ally vendors selling socks, laundry detergent and doritos? Even with the 23 cent tax, Walmart will be cheaper, because of their economies of scale. Anyone big enough to compete with Walmart will not be able to cheat and get away with it. And remember, the rebate up to poverty level will ensure the poorest among us are not impacted adversely.
This is all window dressing anyway. The best part is getting back to financial privacy. It should not be the govenments business what I spend or save. NRST makes us more anonymous, no IRS threat. That's why the politicians want the status quo.
Who's side are you on? Let's put control back with the people, not the government.
Okay, so stick with the status quo, and in another 10 years the time/cost it takes to fill out a return will double, audit risk will increase, and the US will continue to have the least efficient tax code in the world. What is your alternative? What will give me back my financial privacy, give me back my time, encourage saving and investing, and stop the social meddling of Congress better than the NRST. I am all ears.
The wealthy pay smart, talented people to help them pay as little tax as necessary to comply with our complicated tax code. The very wealthy try not to earn "income", because it is heavily taxed. Tax shelters, tax free bonds, capital gain income, and paper loss techniques greatly reduce the effective tax rate they pay. In short, at 36.9%, there is an incentive to evade, and they arrange their finances to pay less tax. Perhaps under a NRST, they could arrange their finances and pay those smart talented people to more efficiently use their capital and help propel the economy forward. Income tax inserts waste and negative productivity at levels most people never consider.
No kidding, Nightie??? Eliminates ALL deductions, eh? Then then how did these "slip into" S1099:You moron. Those are on the business side and are only to determine income. The only deduction an individual can make is the standard deduction.
"`(d) Deductions-BWAHAHAHAHA! pigdog thinks (fears?) "wages" is a deduction from the flat tax...BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
`(1) IN GENERAL- The deductions specified in this subsection are--`(A) the cost of business inputs for the business activity,
`(B) wages (as defined in section 3121(a) without regard to paragraph (1) thereof) which are paid in cash for services performed in the United States as an employee, and
No surprise. How could anyone that can't grasp how "business" taxes are calculated possibly fathom the definiton for simple "business" deductions in a tax code...even when the word "business" is clearly printed all over the page?
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.