Posted on 04/04/2006 2:17:28 PM PDT by Eaglewatcher
But you said: Espcially since "used" is not a legal term. Now you ignore acknowledging your error (used is legally defined) and fabricate a new explanation for what you meant. You don't have to admit that you didn't read the bill (H.R.25) because none of the spaghetti you're throwing at the wall is sticking.
|
149Zon: That's but one definition of a strawman. Your implication that there is only one definition is not only wrong, it doesn't save face for you. Rather, it exposes your ignorance. Main Entry: straw man
|
I posted no propaganda in my 141 post. What part of the following do you think is propaganda and/or do you disagree with?
Should I assume that you didn't like the history lesson (in post 141) and above and that you chose to call it propaganda as a futile attempt to escape the reality of it?
|
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
You have real difficulty reasoning logically.
None at all . You keep throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. Sometimes contradicting yourself in the process. You've done it again in the post I'm responding to.
In this case, what you called a "premise" is in fact a "conclusion".
Your premise was that government checks are always bad. It is neither fact nor true. It was the premise which you based your arguments on. One of those arguments was this: "government checks are always bad. That includes tax refunds, for example."120
Here is your contradiction:
It is de facto theft whenever the money is given to anyone but its original owner.
But you said in 120 that government checks were always bad, including refunds.
You have spaghetti on your face. None is sticking to the wall. You're knee deep in it.
You posted nothing that focused on the subject we were discussing - How a massive increase in black market activity would affect your tax scheme. Are you going to tell us all that the "fair tax" scheme is not going to cause an increase in such activity? Are you going to tell us that such increase would not be detremental to functional plans for the "fair tax" scheme and require some sort of compensation measures?
Main Entry: straw man
Function: noun
1 : a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted
Free clue: definition #1 relates to logic.
Yes it does. And according to you in your 132 post "A "strawman" is an argument that I put in your mouth, for the purposes of refuting it."
I should have said that's one way to use a straw man and not said it's but one definition. My bad. There are many other ways a straw man can be used that has nothing to do with putting words in a person's mouth or knocking down the straw man..
Not only are you telling a PhD mathematician what a "straw man" is,
You may be a PhD mathematician but a straw man is not limited to putting words in a persons mouth in order to knock it down.
Definition #2 has nothing whatsoever to do with logic.
That's correct.
You're somewhat of an enigma. A PhD throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks rather than reading (H.R.25) to see what the FairTax bill is and is not.
Shalom Israel: The "used goods loophole" will have to be closed first thing. Espcially since "used" is not a legal term.142
ancient_geezer: `(16) USED PROPERTY- The term `used property' means--
`(A) property on which the tax imposed by section 101 has been collected and for which no credit has been allowed under section 203, and
`(B) property that was held other than for a business purpose (as defined in section 102(b)) on December 31, 2004.146
ancient_geezer: LOL the used goods "loophole".146
Shalom Israel: It becomes a "loophole" after the fact,
But you said: Espcially since "used" is not a legal term. Now you ignore acknowledging your error (used is legally defined) and fabricate a new explanation for what you meant. You don't have to admit that you didn't read the bill (H.R.25) because none of the spaghetti you're throwing at the wall is sticking.
Scratch that post. Two additional replies to other posts were erroneously included by mistake.
Now you ignore acknowledging your error (used is legally defined) and fabricate a new explanation for what you meant.
As usual, you can't interpret what's being said to you. While I stand corrected as to "used" being a "legal term", the "definition" is garbage. A "used" item is defined to be any item on which the tax was paid before. Clever, but not good enough. There are obvious ways around that. For example, selling "new" at a very low price, on which the tax is paid, and then selling at the real price, "used", with no tax.
Your implication that there is only one definition is not only wrong, it doesn't save face for you. Rather, it exposes your ignorance.
You keep repeating yourself, even after you've been answered. You do realize, don't you, that an idiot who constantly repeats himself is more annoying than an idiot who doesn't?
That's exactly the real problem: you are ultimately a socialist who, regardless of the form of taxation, insists that the multi-trillion-dollar spending shall continue. That's why I can't get behind you.
I want abolish the socialist Income tax and the IRS.
Absurd: you are implying that some forms of taxation are non-socialist. And the new agency, whatever its initials, will be no better than the IRS. It will probably be the IRS, with appropriately changed stationery.
Which is exactly why the calculation is hogwash.
Which caculation is that?
The legislation (HR25) sets the base tax rate at 23% commensurate with current measures of taxation with respect to consumption, from there it is up to the American electorate to go after Congress Critters to make changes which would be more appropriate as federal spending decreases.
Tax rates should not be a function of old tax law in period. It should be based on rational concerns over providing that minimum necessary functionality of government in performance of constitutional duty.
When you've been around the block a few times, you'll realize that every loophole is a a provision of some legislation.
You definition of loophole is fine, however your application of it misses the point. "Used property" as provided for in the legislation is that which has had the tax already paid on it. Why would you want to tax something twice, which appears to be what you desire to do in calling prohibiting tax on used (previously taxed items) property a loophole?
A loophole only occures where an item has not been taxed at all that should be covered under the legislation. It certainly does not include that which has been taxed, and should not be taxed again.
It becomes a "loophole" after the fact, when someone or other decides he doesn't like the unexpected consequences of the original law.
What unintended consequence occurs when items are only taxed once at retail sale only by explicit provision of the bill. The intended consequence is that item not be taxed more than once.
Apparently you believe they ought to be tax one or more times, so just how many times do you figure any product ought to be taxed by the federal government and how do you intend to assure that products are taxed the number of times you define to be appropriate? The idea is to simplify by going to a pure use and consumption tax applied only once to products at time of sale to the first consumer of the final product.
You posted nothing that focused on the subject we were discussing -
You said in your 129 post: "Talk to some who lived through WWII or even some of their children." I don't know what they'd say nor do I have a person that lived through WWII readily at hand to ask so I posted a history lesson of what the tax situation was during WWII. You must think I'm psychic and know what those people would say. You left the door purposefully open, You never said nor implied what they would say so I set the ground work tax history. If there was a lot of tax evasion at that time it's understandable considering the 94% personal income tax and 40% corporate income tax. Which I pointed out those numbers in my 141 post 153 post. I also pointed out that the FairTax eliminates income taxes and replaces them with a consumption tax.
How a massive increase in black market activity would affect your tax scheme.
The black market will be no worse then than it is now. I see you've toned it down from: "very real potential to increase by, at least, an order of magnetude" -- 101 What is massive? One magnitude? A half magnitude? Three times the size. Twice the size? 50% larger? 25% larger. Is it possible for you to be more ambiguous with your sensationalism?
Are you going to tell us all that the "fair tax" scheme is not going to cause an increase in such activity?
Yes, I'm telling you that. Interesting that you included yourself in the collective "all" group. Are you a collectivist? Anybody that reads this post is looking in on our discussion but I'm telling you.
Are you going to tell us that such increase...
As I said I'm telling you that there will be no increase nor decrease. Least wise none that amounts to any significant loss or gain. Your black market boogieman is just that, a false fear -- it's illusion.
[There are obvious ways around that. For example, selling "new" at a very low price, on which the tax is paid, and then selling at the real price, "used", with no tax.]
That is an example of a dodge easily countered. The total volume of business inputs that received a deferral of the FairTax can be tied to a deferral certificate#. When that business remits the FairTax for its sales, and the remittance is less than the deferred amount on its inputs, we can flag that business to be audited. Actually, the FairTax enforcement agency at the State level will have more info than that to work with. A business' FairTax remittance had better far exceed the deferred amount -- otherwise how is the business paying its employees ?
The States are earmarked to receive 1/4 of a point of the FairTax collected. That is 0.0025 * $2T = $5B available for auditing of 30 million businesses. The IRS, in contrast, is spending $12B enforcing a much more complicated Tax code on five times as many returns. As a mathematician, you should be able to appreciate the increased odds of auditing that a business would face under the FairTax.
You give people more credit than they deserve. You must be surrounded by politically astute friends and relatives.
I've got a sister that insists she pays NOTHING in taxes because her income is low enough that the EITC completely refunds even the SS/M taxes she paid.
The concept that everything she purchases includes the taxes that the supply-chain remitted is completely beyond her. She votes for every new social program that comes along -- because she "won't have to pay for it, because she doesn't make enough to pay taxes." In the last Cali election, she voted for an increase in property taxes on rental property to pay for "free" pre-school. Why not ? She doesn't own rental property. Do you suppose she'd make the connection if her landlord raised the rent on her townhouse ?
Politicians don't under-estimate human stupidity. They count on it.
All static calculations are fantasy, because they assume that humans do not adapt. Humans adapt.
Tax rates should not be a function of old tax law in period. It should be based on rational concerns...
Socialist claptrap. Taxation is theft.
You definition of loophole is fine, however your application of it misses the point.
The point is much larger than "used" versus "new". The point is that humans adapt. Every legal behavior that people adopt to avoid the tax will be labeled a "loophole" in the future.
Apparently you believe they ought to be tax one or more times, so just how many times do you figure any product ought to be taxed by the federal government...
Zero.
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.