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.
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.