Posted on 09/30/2011 5:41:07 AM PDT by New Jersey Realist
'Suddenly, liberal Democrats are making the same argument about the tax code that I've been making for 20 years," laughs former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey. "Welcome to the party." Mr. Armey, who along with Steve Forbes has been the torch bearer for the flat tax since the early 1990s, believes that the latest applause line from President Obama that "billionaires should pay the same tax rate as janitors" may be the political gateway to sweeping tax reform.
Mr. Forbes sees an opening here too and says: "The flat tax is the perfect issue for these times. It fixes the economy and doesn't cost a dime." He's right. It's the teed-up GOP response to a jobless recovery and the near-universal sentiment among voters that the tax code is corrupt beyond repair.
That case is inadvertently helped as Mr. Obama and his new best friend, billionaire Warren Buffett, barnstorm the country trashing the tax system for, as the Oracle of Omaha puts it, "coddling the super rich." In truth, the system isn't nearly as skewed in favor of those at the top of the income pyramid as they allege: Today the top 1% pay 38% of the income tax. But in Washington, perception drives policy. The virtue of a flat tax with no deductions is that it provides an ironclad guarantee that the rich pay no lower a tax rate than janitors and secretaries.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
our current tax code started as a flat tax...
the fair tax is the answer.
teeman
our current tax code started as a flat tax...
the fair tax is the answer.
teeman
our current tax code started as a flat tax...
the fair tax is the answer.
teeman
Spot on Taxman! Trying to sell the Fair Tax is like pulling teeth with most people however. And politicians will never give up their power for their social engineering. I agree that the Fair Tax would bring this country around big time and fast. First we gotta flood the stables of DC and flush out all the liberals and conservatives who have made politics their life’s work. Then we gotta get new blood in there who agree with us. How about you run for office?
I'll start with the "paid poster" part. I didn't know that there was such a thing. When do I get my check?
Principled wrote:
You're a liar and a paid poster.
FYI, I actually pay to post here. I try to give at least once or twice a year, even if I can't really afford it. I've been on FreeRepublic since 1998 or so, but under a different user name. I didn't get banned, I had a computer failure and I don't have access to the email associated with the other account, nor do I have the password. I guess I could have called JimRob or JohnRob, but my "old" handle was a little dated anyway, so I signed up as a new user with a new email.
Actually, back on Post #80 I said, “This ranges from lawyers, doctors and accountants all the way down to landscape services, painters, roofers and pool cleaning services.” I'm not sure where you picked up "dentists," but you chose to omit most of my examples. You chose to focus on 2 out of the 7 I mentioned, plus the one you added.
Principled wrote:
I didn't zero in on anyone - you made that up. YOU zeroed in on the "rich". I didn't even say that. YOU did.
Now, you've called me a liar. Where did I lie? Or will you apologize for that?
Maybe for the examples you focused on it's trivial. However, it's not trivial for small businesses with many mobile technicians in vehicles. The examples I gave are some valid ones. These businesses don't currently collect sales taxes, and the changes to their businesses to implement the Fair Tax will not be trivial. The solution would be to use a tax base more similar to what states already tax.
Principled wrote:
My post pointed out that people who don't currently collect sales tax can do so trivially.
To do that, and still feed the beast of a government that we have today (and that Fair Tax supporters don't want to cut), the rate would be prohibitively high, or it wouldn't be anywhere close to "revenue neutral."
Fair Tax supporters wouldn't think of scaling back spending as part of their proposal, to keep thing balanced at lower revenue levels. Fair Tax supporters seem to be happy with the current spending and taxation levels. Their issue seems only to be the way the taxes are collected today.
Actually, there is no law requiring that. There is House Rule XXI, clause 10, which is often called the "PayGo rule." That's not a law.
Principled wrote:
You're all over the place talking about a zillion things b/c your goal isn't to argue the merits of the nrst, it's to keep the status quo.
The nrst is revenue neutral b/c by law it has to be. C'mon. We're wise to you.
Even House Rule XXI, clause 10 doesn't require revenue neutrality. It requires any bill that comes to the floor to be "balanced" and offset revenue reductions with either other revenue increases in other areas, or with spending reductions to balance the net revenue reductions.
Of course, the progressives that support the FairTax (there are a fair number of progressives among the cosponsors) won't consider any spending reductions. That's what makes.
I don't support the status quo. I want Washington to spend less and tax us less. The Fair Tax does neither, that's why I don't support it.
What I do favor is less spending. I also would support any tax proposal which meets item four from last year's "Contract from America.":
The FairTax, as outlined in H.R. 25, doesn't come close to that. Cut it back to 4,543 words or less and get back to us.
4. Enact Fundamental Tax Reform
Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words—the length of the original Constitution.
Really? Wow!
Principled wrote:
Yes, common cents. Lawn services will carry cash registers on their tractors. And swipe machines on the weed-whackers.
Tell me, will they get a federal grant to pay for these things?
Actually, I mentioned the lawn guy because he has a FairTax bumper sticker on his truck. I asked him if he was looking forward to reporting his sales monthly, and collecting and remitting the FairTax. I also pointed out that our state will probably find it "beneficial" to start taxing us on his sales as well (services like his are untaxed in my state). Oddly enough, after reading more about the FairTax, he covered up his FairTax bumper sticker.
The FairTax is great if you only read the front page at FairTax.org. The problem is, if you read the actual bill, H.R. 25, the details have some serious issues. And I haven't mentioned some of the bigger constitutional issues with it.
I agree. The 16th Amendment was I believe the first such amendment that had nothing to do with individual or States rights.
We’re sticking with the flat tax. We think it’s best.
(Remember...ANY tax can be changed.)
;-)
LOL you really are impressed with yourself. Be glad - you’re the only one. It’s really simple. No lengthy posts with fancy html needed. Nobody reads them anyway.
Under the income tax, legal individuals pay their full tax burden in two parts; tax on income/earnings and embedded tax in purchases. But drug dealers, prostitutes etc only pay the part of their tax burden that is paid by embedded taxes in purchases. They do not pay the other component of one’s full tax burden. See, they’re not paying their legal share.
Under the nrst, one’s full burden comes from legal purchases. So under the nrst, drug dealers and prostitutes etc WILL pay their full burden.
Duh.
Seminar posters are soooo easy when they’re inexperienced.
Absolutely. I've talked to a number of independent people and they like the idea that everyone pays the same rate. The only issue is that they must get rid of the income tax. I'm concerned that in trying to impose a flat tax some will insist on a small but "fair" income tax. That will defeat the whole purpose.
Agreed. We must shape the debate to ensure that the income tax is abolished and replaced with the FairTax.
The objective is to eliminate ALL income taxes, and tax only consumption.
Flat taxers claim that the flat tax is a consumption tax. They are wrong. It is a flat rate income tax with all the inherent evils income taxes imply.
We will never be a FRee people until we eliminate the income tax and abolish the IRS!
“Jeez you’re posting stupid.”
He or she also has a join date of 10 days ago, buyer beware indeed!
Here is an even better idea. I heard it from Walter Williams. The gummint doesn’t HAVE to “tax” us. The gummint could just print the money it needs. If held to 7% of GDP this would actually work well. Dunnowhattaxlawyers would do (take THAT, IPad).
I have heard that myself. Unclear on the details, though.
9-9-9. sales tax-property tax and income tax..thats 27%..plus what you pay to city, county and state..thas close to 60%. hmmmmm....and does anyone think Congress will keep it this low? cut spending first. cut pork first..thats the part they want to keep.
That's not true. If someone sells taxable goods and services, the FairTax also requires them to collect and remit the FairTax on their sales of taxable goods and services.
Principled wrote:
Under the nrst, one’s full burden comes from legal purchases. So under the nrst, drug dealers and prostitutes etc WILL pay their full burden.
From H.R.25 the “Fair Tax Act,” Section 103(a):You said, “So under the nrst, drug dealers and prostitutes etc WILL pay their full burden.” I'm asking, exactly how do you foresee the drug dealers and prostitutes complying with Section 103(a)? If they shirk their responsibilities under Section 103(a), how are they paying their “full burden”?
(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).
I'm saying that drug dealers and prostitutes will not fully comply with the FairTax. They will cheat on their FairTax responsibilities the same way they cheat on the income tax, by not reporting their taxable transactions.
Taxes are a necessary evil. I don't believe that enacting a national retail sales tax before repealing the 16th amendment will ultimately lead to having both a sales tax and an income tax. That's one big reason I oppose the FairTax.
Taxman wrote:
Agreed. We must shape the debate to ensure that the income tax is abolished and replaced with the FairTax.
The objective is to eliminate ALL income taxes, and tax only consumption.
Flat taxers claim that the flat tax is a consumption tax. They are wrong. It is a flat rate income tax with all the inherent evils income taxes imply.
We will never be a FRee people until we eliminate the income tax and abolish the IRS!
I believe the best way to avoid this is to have a single Constitutional Amendment that:
That last part, constitutionally requiring a flat sales tax rate, is also important. There needs to be an absolute, constitutional requirement that the sales tax apply equally to all goods at the same rate. This is because I find the claim that the sales tax will remain "flat" with one rate applying to all new goods and services to be unbelievable. The FairTax supporters would be much more credible on these claims if the Congressional sponsors could credibly say, “There have been x thousand changes to the income tax code over the past 8 years, and we, the sponsors of this bill voted against every single one of those changes.” Of course, nobody in the Congress today could actually make that statement (well, maybe Ron Paul, I haven't checked his record on tax code changes).
If the FairTax passes, all those Lobbyists who make a living advocating for changes in the tax code aren't going to go away. Instead, they will just start focusing on the FairTax code and getting advantages and exceptions for their constituencies and punitive surcharges for their competitors written into the sales tax code. When they lobby for this, the voting record of our current crop of Congress Critters says they will succeed at least some of the time. To believe otherwise is to deny reality.
The only credible way to solve that problem is to make it a constitutional requirement that any national sales tax be a flat rate and apply equally to all sales of new goods.
This was explained above. I've actually been here since 1998 or so (maybe 1999, I don't actually remember).
JDW11235 wrote:
“Jeez you’re posting stupid.”
He or she also has a join date of 10 days ago, buyer beware indeed!
Actually, the computer that failed is back, and I can log in with the old account now (and I did post a few things on that account when I got the computer back), but I think I'll probably use this account going forward.
I don't
do believe that enacting a national retail sales tax before repealing the 16th amendment will ultimately lead to having both a sales tax and an income tax.
LOL he’s trying to tell me that when someone fails to report income and fails to pay income tax that it has no effect on tax revenues.
LOL indeed.
Common cents you’re messed up.
You’re really trying to tell us that when income is not reported and income tax is not paid on said unreported income, that it has no effect on tax revenues.
That is indeed posting stupid.
Your “look at the shiny object” posts don’t work here.
Like any tax system, the nrst has problems. This isn’t one of them.
Like any tax system, the nrst has things I’d like to change. This isn’t one of them.
oy vey... seminar posters... we nailed one in texas most recently. Where are you?
Principled, I never said that. Where did you get that from?
Principled wrote:
You’re really trying to tell us that when income is not reported and income tax is not paid on said unreported income, that it has no effect on tax revenues.
Here's my point, boiled down to a few sentences.
Prostitutes, drug dealers and other "underground economy" tax evaders always cheat on their taxes. Under the income tax system we have today, they cheat by not reporting their income and not paying tax on that. Under the FairTax, they won't report their taxable sales, and they won't collect and remit the taxes due on their sales. The FairTax won't collect any more revenue from the "underground economy" than the income tax because the "undergound economy" exists to evade taxation.
You are the one making absurd, untrue statements, such as, “So under the nrst, drug dealers and prostitutes etc WILL pay their full burden.”
When I challenge you to tell me why you believe that drug dealers and prostitutes will comply with Section 103(a) of the FairTax, instead of admitting that you're incorrect, you respond with personal attacks on me. I guess that means you have no answer.
If the FairTax were a better proposal, you wouldn't have to exaggerate the benefits and make untrue claims 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.