Posted on 01/20/2008 6:29:07 AM PST by Man50D
During an election season, one of the first losers is the truth. The current misinformation campaign against the FairTax has been particularly virulent. Last month the FairTax was being panned by some columnists as a "crackpot scheme," even though it could be collected exactly the same way as its close cousin, the value-added tax, which is the most successful tax in the world. This month the FairTax is being vilified by various columnists as a tax increase for the middle class, even though it would provide a substantial tax cut for two-parent middle class families. Specifically, in a recent column, George Will asked, "Do you want a president (Mike Huckabee, proponent of a national sales tax of at least 30 percent) pledged to radically increase the proportion of federal taxes paid by the middle class?" Similarly, Time magazine's business and economics columnist Justin Fox wrote a blog piece entitled, "The FairTax and its big break for the $200,000-plus crowd."
The FairTax is a national sales tax that would replace the income taxes, the payroll taxes, and the gift and inheritance taxes. It would be a 30 percent sales tax on retail purchases. Since 30 cents is 23 percent of $1.30 (the amount you would pay on a $1 item), a 30 percent FairTax would cost you about 23 percent of your consumption. To help you pay the tax, you would get a prebate check or a debit card credit at the beginning of each month equivalent to the amount you would pay when buying necessities. In 2007, that amount would have been based upon $10,210 spending per adult and $3,480 spending per child.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
The "read the book" argument. What lies exactly?
I thought an important part of gunnery was to aim carefully and not just squeeze off a lot of rounds in the general direction.
Fairtax
http://denisbider.blogspot.com/2008/01/taxation-in-pictures-why-fairtax-makes.html
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer
http://www.fairtax.org/site/News2?news_iv_ctrl=1541&page=NewsArticle&id=8248
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_ask_question
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.25:
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:gogrXXoQcwEJ:www.pafairtax.org/resrcs/FlatTaxFairTaxComparison.pdf+fair+tax+fica+tax&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/Open_Letter.pdf
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59747
Perhaps you should read the bill. It provides each retailer charged with the responsibility of collecting and remitting the sales tax a tax credit equal to .25% of the tax collected or $200, which ever is greater. The cost of administration is factored in to the rate.
By comparison, the income tax, with it’s Orwellian reporting requirements, offers no such administrative offset to the costs associated with calculating, withholding and remitting payroll or income taxes. Those costs are real and uncompensated and therefore, drive up the cost of doing business. The Fair Tax pays for itself. Businesses will be able to fire those who are now employed administering the income tax or they can reassign them to administering the sales tax. Either way, the businesses will be compensated under the Fair Tax and they are NOT compensated under the income tax.
States are likewise given a tax credit of .25% of the tax collected to compensate the states for the administration costs they will incur.
wrong. it is very easy to identify or address split.
If a person shares a house then you have TWO seperate adults.
If anything then this is the IDENTICAL trap as the Great Society program. There is no incentive to be married. Of course in that situation you had fathers also divorcing mothers and moving out to keep government benefits.
The explanation from the hustonTexas Scam Tax, the one next to the equadorian consulate and beauty salon, is hardly a credible source of information. The actual language of the law is plain enough. A first year law student could find the gaping holes is this poorly written and poorly thought out proposal.
Better check -- that is exactly what she IS fighting the anti-FT idiots on this forum about.
Incorrect. Look at the table at the following link:
http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/FairTaxPrebateExplained2007.pdf
The second adult in the house gets the same prebate as the first. There will be no incentive to split the house. NONE.
STATED DIFFERENTLY: Two adults will get two prebates whether they occupy one dwelling or two.
Where’s the incentive to split the residence?
“`SEC. 303. MONTHLY POVERTY LEVEL.
`(a) In General- The monthly poverty level for any particular month shall be one-twelfth of the `annual poverty level.’ For purposes of this section the `annual poverty level’ shall be the sum of—
`(1) the annual level determined by the Department of Health and Human Services poverty guidelines required by sections 652 and 673(2) of the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1981 for a particular family size, and
`(2) in case of families that include a married couple, the `annual marriage penalty elimination amount’.
`(b) Annual Marriage Penalty Elimination Amount- The annual marriage penalty elimination amount shall be the amount that is—
`(1) the amount that is two times the annual level determined by the Department of Health and Human Services poverty guidelines required by sections 652 and 673(2) of the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1981 for a family of one, less
`(2) the annual level determined by the Department of Health and Human Services poverty guidelines required by sections 652 and 673(2) of the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1981 for a family of two.”
EVERYONE who does business has to register. EVEN THOSE WHO ARE EXEMPT will have to register because they are “potentially liable” (based on current case law).
=====excerpt from http://www.thomas.gov ======
`SEC. 502. REGISTRATION.
`(a) In General- Any person liable to collect and remit taxes pursuant to section 103(a) who is engaged in a trade or business shall register as a seller with the sales tax administering authority administering the taxes imposed by this subtitle.
`(b) Affiliated Firms- Affiliated firms shall be treated as 1 person for purposes of this section. Affiliated firms may elect, upon giving notice to the Secretary in a form prescribed by the Secretary, to treat separate firms as separate persons for purposes of this subtitle.
`(c) Designation of Tax Matters Person- Every person registered pursuant to subsection (a) shall designate a tax matters person who shall be an individual whom the sales tax administering authority may contact regarding tax matters. Each person registered must provide notice of a change in the identity of the tax matters person within 30 days of said change.
`(d) Certificates of Registration- The sales tax administering authority shall provide certificates of registration to registered sellers.
`(e) Effect of Failure To Register- Any person that is required to register and who fails to do so is prohibited from selling taxable property or services. The Secretary or a sales tax administering authority may bring an action seeking a temporary restraining order, an injunction, or such other order as may be appropriate to enforce this section.
====end section====
This is the section you are refering to. The whole bill has formulats that are easily creativly interprited. Whoever wrote this obviously has never understood the law of unitended consequences.
=====begin== ==
SEC. 204. ADMINISTRATION CREDIT.
`(a) In General- Every person filing a timely monthly report (with regard to extensions) in compliance with section 501 shall be entitled to a taxpayer administrative credit equal to the greater of—
`(1) $200, or
`(2) one-quarter of 1 percent of the tax remitted.
`(b) Limitation- The credit allowed under this section shall not exceed 20 percent of the tax due to be remitted prior to the application of any credit or credits permitted by section 201.
=== end second excerpt -——
This is just rife with possiblity for any competent accountant.
If you have a choice to not buy food and fuel each month, you also have a choice of not going to work.
nope it is just irrelevant to maximizing the number of checks.
Nice try. Have a coffee at the sandwich shop.
so you admit it is EASY to have multiple rebates on whim.
most people will not need the propaganda website.
by the way your website whois info needs to be corrected. ;-)
“`SEC. 502. REGISTRATION.
`(a) In General- Any person liable to collect and remit taxes pursuant to section 103(a)...”
OK, so, what does Section 103(a) say?
“`SEC. 103. RULES RELATING TO COLLECTION AND REMITTANCE OF TAX.
`(a) Liability for Collection and Remittance of the Tax- Except as provided otherwise by this section, any tax imposed by this subtitle shall be collected and remitted by the seller of taxable property or services (including financial intermediation services).”
SO, what does that mean? If you don’t sell taxable property or services, you don’t have to register. Next silly objection?
You can maximize the number of checks from now till hell freezes over. You cannot increase the total amount of the checks. Next silly objection?
do you read english. there is every incentive, and now iwht your own confession.
With a few simple paper efforts a family of four over 18 people can have four seperate checks. so insteak of 5 k they will get 20 k.
The fair tax scam fails. again.
Not at all. I do suggest the income tax violates the 1st, 4th, 5th and 10th amendments to the Constitution.
I further suggest that using the term "scam" following the term FairTax is sublime stupidity and practiced by those who are incapable of debating the issue.
How?
By comparison, the income tax, with it’s Orwellian reporting requirements, offers no such administrative offset to the costs associated with calculating, withholding and remitting payroll or income taxes.Is that what they taught you to say at the Fairtax re-education camp?
Apparentley no one at the re-education camp knows about tax deductions for accounting/payroll services and tax preparers as a cost of doing business.
Allow me.....
“...`(d) Annual Registration- In order to receive the family consumption allowance provided by section 301, a qualified family must register with the sales tax administering authority in a form prescribed by the Secretary. The annual registration form shall provide—
`(1) the name of each family member who shared the qualified family’s residence on the family determination date,
`(2) the Social Security number of each family member on the family determination date who shared the qualified family’s residence on the family determination date,
`(3) the family member or family members to whom the family consumption allowance should be paid,
`(4) a certification that all listed family members are lawful residents of the United States,
`(5) a certification that all family members sharing the common residence are listed,
`(6) a certification that no family members were incarcerated on the family determination date (within the meaning of subsection (l)), and
`(7) the address of the qualified family.
Said registration shall be signed by all members of the qualified family that have attained the age of 21 years as of the date of filing....”
If the family "splits" the residence in an attempt to multiply the prebate, they must then falsely swear that all members of the household have been listed. PS, how much do you think it will cost to "split" the residence and multiply the real estate tax? The utility services? Do you really think individuals will be incentivized to do this for a few short years of double dipping on the prebate? What happens after their kids leave home and they have two or more utility hook-ups and a higher real estate tax bill for an apartment building or "duplex"?
Wow. I wish I would have thought of this great scam. Pfft.
With a few simple paper efforts a family of four over 18 people can have four seperate checks. so insteak of 5 k they will get 20 k.
Perhaps no one told you that if you don’t have to expend money preparing taxes, there will be higher profit for the owners or prices can drop or employees can earn more. Did you ever consider those possibilities?
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.