Posted on 05/11/2007 5:30:56 AM PDT by Dick Bachert
I have a little scenario I would like to paint for those of you out there who just insist on finding something wrong with the FairTax. Admittedly, the FairTax isn't perfect. No tax plan is. How, after all, can you come up with a perfect way for a government to take its operating funds from its subjects? If you know an easier and more equitable way to do it, by all means, let me know!
I'm going to ask you to crank up your imagination for a moment here ... and by "you," I mean those of you who think that this FairTax thing is a bad idea and you're not prepared to come on board.
I want you to imagine a scenario. Don't worry about whether or not this scenario is possible .. Just accept it as I present it, and then consider the alternative picture I'm going to also present. Simple as that.
Let's imagine that the FairTax is the law. We've been operating under the FairTax since the day you drew your first paycheck. It's all you know. Here is your imaginarily "reality."
On every payday you get your complete paycheck. There are no deductions. If you earn $2,000 per week, you get a check for $4,000 every two weeks. You never have to save receipts or create any records pertaining to federal taxes. You can invest money without paying any taxes on it. You don't have to pay taxes on the money you earn through your investment portfolio. You pay no taxes on any money you put in your savings account. When you die you get to leave your entire estate, everything you own, to whomever you wish. The federal government will take no taxes from your estate. Your death is not a taxable event. When you go to the store to buy an item, and the price tag says $19.99, you will had a $20 bill to the cashier and get one penny back. The price tag is the price. There are four people in your household. You, your spouse and two rug rats. At the beginning of every month you get a check or a credit to your checking or charge card account in the amount of $506.00 to compensate you for the federal sales taxes that are included in the price of everything you buy; right up to the poverty level.
All in all .. not such a bad deal. You keep all of the money you earn and you get five hundred bucks a month from the feds. Plus .. you only pay taxes when you spend money.
Now .. .here comes some politician who has a grand scheme for a new tax system. He wants to explain it to you. Here's his great idea ..... give him a listen and tell us what you think.
The plan is simple. First the federal sales tax is going to be removed from the price of everything you buy. This will mean that everything will cost 23% less than it does now. But ... he's going to levy an income tax on every single individual and business who plays any role at all in bringing those products to the marketplace. These people and companies are all going to pass the cost of these taxes down the economic line to the final consumer of the products they manufacture. These taxes will end up embedded into the prices of products in our retail marketplace, bringing those prices right up to the current level. So .. no loss, no gain.
Next your political benefactor is going to take away your $500 per month prebate from the government. In its place he's going to tax every penny you earn. It doesn't matter where the money comes from. Your salary, your investment income, winnings at the track ... whatever you earn and however you earn it, it's going to be taxed.
Wait! He's not through. He's also going to tax your wages for Social Security and Medicare. He's going to try to soften the blow by telling you that your employer is going to match the taxes he takes out of your paycheck, but you're employer has made it clear that this money is all going to come out of the money he has budgeted to hire you. You'll probably lose out on your next raise while the boss his accounting in order.
There are some more nifty ideas in your congressman's tax reform plan. When you die your family is going to have to file a complicated estate tax return. A huge amount of the wealth you have managed to build during your life is going to be sent to the government. Your survivors may well have to sell the family business in order to come up with the money to pay for these death taxes.
One more thing .. you're going to have to keep records of all of your financial transactions. Every year you're going to have to spend no less than about 30 hours or spend hundreds of dollars to hire someone to fill out tax forms for you. If mistakes are made you will be hit with a huge penalty and interest. Oh .. and the government is going to have access to all of your financial records to make sure that you are paying everything you "owe."
The question, of course, is why does this politician want to change the tax system in this way? Power, that's why. They want to be able to enact little changes to the tax code that will benefit certain constituents ... which constituents will then benefit the politicians -- with money or with votes. Under the FairTax system these politicians have no power to favor one group of voters over another for the benefit of votes. The new system would give them that power.
Your choice, my friends. If we had the FairTax now ... would you be willing to make the switch?
Not a 30% NRST.
You have already discredited yourself so many times but I will continue because you are a great form of advertising for the FairTax.
So for example you think that the FairTax will not increase the amount of take-home pay.
And then you say I don’t know the difference between fact and fantasy.
I can see people laughing at you now, especially “Joe Average”.
Yeah I guess when I no longer have to pay income taxes, that the extra money I have is going to disappear from my bank account.
Yep. More pay available under the FairTax is a fantasy all right.
What else you got next? All FairTaxers are ax murderers?
Silly boy! Link to the post where I claimed to be a real estate expert.
May we assume that your failure to answer Alwaysright's question re your employment confirms his suspicions.
Awww...can’t do your own due diligence? Why am I am not surprised? Do I have to hold your hand?
Try googling ‘FairTax number of big retailers’ and look on a few pages.
The fact is that the Income tax is a nightmare and a nightmare to enforce. Just ask Mark Rich.
The fact is that Congress agrees that one of the indisputable advantages of the FairTax is that it is considerably easier to enforce, so much so that there will be huge layoffs at the IRS.
You have no dog in this fight. This is one issue that you and looneymum and the other lemmings have so wrong it’s a wonder you haven’t been taken away by those wearing white coats.
But I am happy to oblige you, it’s great advertising for the FairTax.
You sound like a person with an insufficient understanding of taxation and how business works to me. And some of your statements are just out of left field.
BTW- Do you work for any of the FairTax organizations? They might want to get a more coherent spokesperson.
But they might cut you some slack, after all you are just working with the material they give you, and it is a mighty thin gruel.
No.
I beginning to understand your comprehension problem is deeper than first observed.
The FairTax as a consumption tax is a replacement for the Income tax. To attack a consumption tax leaves no alternative but to support an income tax. It is a given that taxes will and must be paid. The question is whether it is better to pay taxes via consumption or via income or via both. The latter is unacceptable, therefore it comes down to a form of consumption or income tax.
Are you for the FairTax or are you for the Income tax?
You are obviously against the FairTax. If you are not for the income tax then what are you for?
Maybe you’re for no taxes at all. If so, we have special places for people like you to think about that.
Fortunately, I'm self employed.
What do you plan to do after your FairTax gig - market reverse mortgages?
Yeah that’s right, you’re not NOW paying a 30% NRST because the NRST is not yet in effect.
But you’re paying a 30% exclusive embedded federal tax NOW.
So what’s the difference?
"Definition: In false dichotomy, the arguer sets up the situation so it looks like there are only two choices. The arguer then eliminates one of the choices, so it seems that we are left with only one option: the one the arguer wanted us to pick in the first place. But often there are really many different options, not just two--and if we thought about them all, we might not be so quick to pick the one the arguer recommends!
Example: "Caldwell Hall is in bad shape. Either we tear it down and put up a new building, or we continue to risk students' safety. Obviously we shouldn't risk anyone's safety, so we must tear the building down." The argument neglects to mention the possibility that we might repair the building or find some way to protect students from the risks in question--for example, if only a few rooms are in bad shape, perhaps we shouldn't hold classes in those rooms."
http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.html
Why are you so condescending to call Americans ‘Joe Average”?
You haven’t demonstrated any faculty that puts you above average people.
I doubt you are self-employed. You are at the computer at all hours everyday on FairTax threads. Who do you think you are fooling? Joe Average?
"Appeal to authority Definition: Often we add strength to our arguments by referring to respected sources or authorities and explaining their positions on the issues we're discussing. If, however, we try to get readers to agree with us simply by impressing them with a famous name or by appealing to a supposed authority who really isn't much of an expert, we commit the fallacy of appeal to authority.
Example: "We should abolish the death penalty. Many respected people, such as actor Guy Handsome, have publicly stated their opposition to it." While Guy Handsome may be an authority on matters having to do with acting, there's no particular reason why anyone should be moved by his political opinions--he is probably no more of an authority on the death penalty than the person writing the paper.
Cut and paste and you call this logic?
You think the FairTax is not designed to replace the Income tax?
BTW how’s that self-employment thing working out?
LOL!
And what does the above make you? A FairTax employee?
My O My we know how to read but not comprehend. You can’t stand up to the challenges so you seek to divert to cut and paste.
Go ahead and broadcast more of your absurd claim that the FairTax is going to be a nightmare to enforce.
In this instance I would call it a futile attempt to educate.
You’re the one with a condescending attitude on this thread. But it’ a real mystery to many I am sure just what it is about you that makes you think you’re above average folks.
Futile is the key word. Educate is not your calling. You ain’t got any calling to educate because “Joe Average” has nothing to gain from you.
What else you got next? FairTaxers are incapable of being edjoomecated?
What I sound like to you is filtered through a medium that you and only you know.
I will not entertain for a second to undertand how you view the world around you. I do not do drugs.
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.