Posted on 04/14/2006 2:42:07 PM PDT by Eaglewatcher
Foodstamps are an entitlement; the prebate is not.
Ummmmm.......Where do you think all those drinkers came from during Prohibition?
It's a safe bet that some of those Prohibition-era "criminals" came from your own family.
Once you slap a 23% to 30% Federal sales tax plus a State sales tax on an item for sale, instead being merely alcohol or drugs, the item that can score you a nice fat profit for breaking the law would be anything or any service for sale.
That makes every American seller and every American buyer a potential tax criminal.
"The price is $390 if you pay with a credit card or $300 plus a $20 tip if you pay with cash." --- Wink.
As I said before, to put all of those people in jail, you would need to turn America into a police state that would make the Soviet Union seem like a Libertarian Party convention.
Primary point - the prebate is a tax refund as is your April 15 refund.
And when it turns out to be even better than I thought I'll be happy that you get the benefit of FREEDOM as well!
Ypou miss the point that presently even more is made by the illegal economy in evading income taxes - far more that under the FairTax and businesses must register with the sales tax folks and be subject to audit.
And the drinkers during prohibition (none of which were my relatives BTW) were not required to register OR pay tax. The two situations are not comparable and pretending they are is ridiculous.
At present there is an even larger incentive for breaking the income tax laws - much more to be gained that under the FairTax and the defalcation is less likely to be detected under the income tax. With the FairTax the merchant would put himself in the position of being liable for the tax if he didn't charge you for it and if he did but kept it that would be easily determinable (and punishaable).
Why would someone have a greater motive to evade under the FairTax than at present since the payoff would then be less and he'd be more likely to be punished? that doesn't hold water at all. And don't kid yourself, pal. Those "cash sales" are still auditable and some states are very practiced at dealing with that sort of criminal.
Your suppositions are egregious nonsense.
Which will work just fine in a mythical country populated by 300 million guilt-ridden saints.
In the America of the Planet Earth, buyers will be dealing with black market sellers who will say:
"The price is $390 if you pay with a credit card or $300 plus a $20 tip if you pay with cash." --- Wink.
I must point out that you are vigorously arguing with yourself.
On some posts, you claim that black marketeers will surely end up in jail and in this post you now claim that "the taxpayer has no "bumping into" the state (or federal) tax authority. They interact with the businesses who collect the tax, not the taxpayer".
So, which one is it?
An America where every one of 250 million-plus potential tax cheats will end up in jail or an America where the potential tax cheat is on an honor system with his seller?
As opposed to the speakeasy owners who were "required" not to sell alcohol at all?
You seem to have a very Pollyanna mindset when it comes to the realities of greed and crime.
As at present the "honor system" is the law - the FairTax in the case of the preferred tax law.
The is no requirement that the taxpayer (the consumer) do any more than pay the tax to the seller and obtain the required receipt for it. It is the seller who is the potential criminal if he does not comply with the law since if he doesn't charge the tax but should have he can be held responsible for it. If he charged the tax but steals it, that clearly is theft. There is no arging with myself or anyone else.
And your "black market" argument is certainly nonsense since about 80% of the dollar bvolume of retail sales are done by something like 20% of the businesses. Most will not be winking at anyone since to profit they'd need to remain in business.
Hardly. The two times are not at all comparable nor are the laws in the two instances.
One dealt with a widely enjoyed pasttime that some people enjoyed and one deals with everyday requirements of living by people who are for the most part law abiding citizens.
that's not pollyanna at all, but a statement of fact since most people file and pay income taxes as nearly as compliant with the law as they can while with your perception they would all be not fin=ling and paying taxes right now.
Certainly there will always be some who evade the law - no one claims otherwise. It will be less widespread than at present with the illegal economy, however.
They are not at all parallel situations nor can your claim of such make them so.
Strawman.You need to look up what a "strawman" is. You posted data and made a claim based on that data and I posted information directly relevant to that data that debunked your assumptions. That's not a strawman.
My claim is only that the data show that irrespective of reported income, people spend to the poverty level. There are a number of reasons for this.You stated that "Very few will spend little enough to profit on the rebate. Indeed, this table indicates that nobody will." I pointed out that the data is skewed to not show the number of people spending under the poverty level (we actually have a statistic specifically for that - the poverty rate).
As you posted, a significant number could be living on saved money - in which case they will not profit from the rebate. That a significant number of people are in that category supports the assertion that few will profit from the rebate. The existence of this category makes the group that may profit from tax refunds even smaller.Smaller? Are you admitting they exist? If so, that would be a big step for you.
Another strawman. If someone spends more than they make in income in a given time period, they may be in the cash economy. That's all.Hmmm... you stated "And this also indicates that the nrst will do a better job of capturing cash economy... all these people reporting such low income yet spening above the poverty level...." and not even a mention of who the majority of those people spending above the poverty level probably are. Face it, you made an assumption that fit the FairTax world view and a closer look at the data shows that assumption to be wrong.
Standard errors are not relevant. We both agree that these are averages. The reasons you say the errors are important is to support your claim that one who spends more than they earn does not have to be in the cash economy.That wasn't what I was saying at all. I was point out that there is a large variation in the incomes in the lower levels of that table. This indicates that the are people making more than the typical person in that column who are skewing the average up. My example before tried to illustrate this. If you have 20 people making $5,000 and 5 people making $25,000, the average is $13,000. That average doesn't tell you much about the typical person in that group.
Whether or not they are in the cash economy is unknown, but they may be.Now it's a "may be." Clever.
If even one of the individuals listed is in it, the nrst will collect his taxes more completely and fairly than the income tax. :0) Ya think? lolUh, no. I don't think. If I pay a person cash for a service or good and they don't currently report the income, what makes you think they are more likely to collect the sales tax and remit it? They would probably collect the sales tax and keep it.
Keep trying.Why? You just ignore the facts.
The rebate is for everyone, not a subgroup defined by income.The fact that everyone gets it, and the full amount, is the problem. That's what changes it from a "rebate/prebate/refund" into an entitlement.
"The fact that everyone gets it, and the full amount, is the problem. That's what changes it from a "rebate/prebate/refund" into an entitlement."
That's merely more of your folderol!! The prebate isn't an entitlement but a tax refund, and your claim to the contrary does not alter that fact one iota.
An entitlement is a government program giving benefits to members of a specified group and the FairTax would be not a "program" but the law of the land. "All taxpayers" is hardly a specified group but the whole population and an entitlement has to have appropriation bills renewing the entitlement so that it continues ... a limited time thing IOW.
No matter how hard you try with your incessant quasi-statistical justifications the fact remains that the table Principled used shows the situation clearly enough and post #195 also outlines what's involved. Your "stuff" has done nothing to change that.
"All taxpayers" is hardly a specified group but the whole population and an entitlement has to have appropriation bills renewing the entitlement so that it continuesBut it doesn't got to "all taxpayers," does it. It goes to people regardless of tax paid.
Wrong Nightie ... it goes to all taxpayers but is distributed on the basis of families rather that each individual. The comment I made is still correct.
It's a refund, not an entitlement even if you pretend otherwise.
Wrong Nightie ... it goes to all taxpayers but is distributed on the basis of families rather that each individual. The comment I made is still correct.Paying taxes is not a requirement to get the allowance. How can you say it goes to taxpayers?
Well, Nightie, both the prebate and the taxes are voluntary as has been said on these threads many times.
You needn't take the prebate - it's voluntaary. You also needn't pay the tax if you seriously do not wish to pay taxes though doing so would be very incomvenient and time consuming since you could presumably live in a cave and grow your own food all the while earning untaxed income, investing it, and becoming quite well to do. But there are few indeed who would do so and it's reasonable to believe that everyone or almost everyone would pay some taxes. In any event, though, it is certainly possible for a taxpayer by judicious control of his consumption to keep his taxes fairly low and still live quite well.
Saying that "paying taxes is not a requirement" is merely a way of begging the issue. Almost no one will pay no taxes as we have just seen - though if so ... power to them as they will become wealthy, invest their money saved and assist thereby in the growth of the economy by that investment.
So the prebate does go to taxpayers, but if you opted out as you facetiously propose you'd still be helping the economy by your investments and as a result should certainly receive the prebate for you economic assistance. Nothing wrong with that - or perhaps you'd prefer to see such people NOT help the economy grow.
In short, Nightie, your presentations lack merit - BIG TIME - as you merely view part of the issue. It's like Bastiat's "broken window" in that you're only looking at one part of the picture.
"More like, if you can't win with the facts, post a lot of letters to the editor and 'agendatorials' to make it look like your plan has lots of support."
How much support does The Nightmare Tax have? How is that project coming along? Can you point us to a webpage that lays out the particulars of that proposal yet? Are there any other FReepers or private citizens who support it?
"Most people can't convert their leisure time into cash, so the 'cost' is really less time watching TV, not cash out of pocket."
So the only thing that individuals do with their time is watch tv? Do you have any data to back that assertion up?
"the cost of compliance with the 60,000+ page tax code"
"The tax code isn't 60,000+ pages."
Ok, let's split hairs, shall we? The tax SYSTEM is 60,000+ pages. That makes it a model of efficiency, doesn't it?
"You don't understand. The current NRST legislation will not pass both houses as written."
No, WT, YOU don't understand. You make an unsupported assertion and expect everyone on FR to fall in line behind it. The fact that you post something on FR does NOT make it the absolute truth, or the only interpretation.
Taken to its logical extension, your position is downright un-American. What you are saying is that, since congress alone can determine the specifics of any public policy initiative reduced to a bill in congress, individual citizens should stay away from all areas of public policy. After all, that is the purview of congress and congress alone. We serve the government and not vice versa.
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.