Saturday, February 2, 2008
What is the FairTax? here are some details........whether or not you agree, hate it, love it...it's worth understanding! Here is a primer:
It is a 23% consumption tax that replaces the need for filing with the IRS under a 6700 page tax code that even the IRS employees misinterpret or miscalculate 25% of the time. (That is to say they are off plus or minus in calculating the returns every year.)
Filing with the IRS costs Americans and American companies literally billions of dollars every year both in actual costs to accountants etc, and through time lost from productivity. The IRS can freeze your bank account, take your home, and even imprison you if there are miscalculations in your filing. The assumption is that you intend to defraud. They can do all of these things without ever having proved their case against you. The IRS costs American taxpayers $10 billion dollars a year to maintain! Don't we have better uses for that money?
This consumption tax takes into account the embedded payroll and social security taxes that consumers already pay when they purchase items at the store. Corporations do not 'pay' these taxes; they pass them on to the consumer. Since the Fair Tax removes payroll taxes and social security taxes and export taxes from the corporations, and since we live in a capitalist economy where companies are constantly competing for market share, inevitably some or most of these companies will give these savings back to the consumer in the form of reduced prices. Therefore, the 23% consumption tax will not necessarily translate into increased prices. These tax breaks for corporations will also give them more money to reinvest in current business operations but also to create new companies. They will be better able to compete overseas on pricing, and they will likely find it more profitable to bring some of those jobs that have gone offshore back to the US. It will also encourage foreign investment here in the US.
No more payroll tax or social security, medicare, or FICA taxes will come out of the consumers paychecks. They will have the full benefit of their pay every month. Ron Paul said in one of the debates that if you subsidize something, you get more of it. And that's true. It is also true that if you penalize something, you will get less of it. The payroll (income) tax penalizes productivity…do we want less productivity?
No more capital gains tax. People will no longer be penalized for saving or for growing their capital by investing their money. Money currently sitting in offshore accounts (roughly $12 trillion) to protect it from the IRS can be brought home and reinvested here in the US, bringing security and strength to the dollar and money for investment.
No more inheritance tax. The money you work hard to build and leave behind for your family will not be 'retaxed' as 'new income' by the federal government.
The Fair Tax maintains the current tax free poverty rates of the federal government. Prebates, based on number in household rather than income, alleviate the tax burden on the basic necessities of life for every person with a Social Security Number or a Tax I D Number. There are several credit card companies who have suggested they would be willing to pay for the opportunity to run such a plan. A family of four qualifies for a prebate of $506.00 per/month or $26,400.00 annually; the current federal poverty level. ONLY persons with valid SSN's and TIDN's would qualify for these cards and prebates.
Which brings up the next great advantage of the Fair Tax which is that illegals, prostitutes, drug dealers, even tourists, all of whom only burden our infrastructure from police to prisons to schools to hospitals to firefighters to roads etc will now be forced to participate in funding them as well. There is no possible tax evasion because every first time purchase is taxed. And, those who do not qualify for the prebate will feel the pinch, perhaps removing the temptation to remain in the US illegally.
Under the Fair Tax, the wealthy who buy more and more expensive things still pay more, and the poor are protected. The Fair Tax is the result of ten years of study by top economists and tax accounants. They did not set about to 'prove' the Fair Tax legislation, but rather they set about to find the most reasonable manner in which to fund the government with the money it needs to operate. The result of the ten year study is the Fair Tax.
submitted by Norwegian Wood..thanks for the information!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I might offer a different view. I write this as an ex-optimist. I am now a pessimist. Recall that I wrote our country is doomed to socialism and all is lost!
This is a complicated subject. I'm still grumpy, tired and recovering from the flu so permit me to be brief and summarize my points thusly...
1) A 24% consumption tax? I have to pay a quarter out of every dollar I purchase to the federal government? If I buy a $500,000 house I owe the federal government $125,000? Are you out of your goddamn mind? I haven't even touched local and state taxes yet.
2)I'm through venting, thank you. And ready to move on to why the fair tax, though well-intentioned, is stupid to try to evolve to in a single fell swoop.
3)Fair Tax. That implies that the current tax system is not fair. And that is correct, it isn't. But any time you change any kind of system you're going to create winners and losers, regardless of what is fair (or not). And who will be the winners and losers? Quite simple: The rich are getting screwed and the middle class aren't paying anywhere near their fair share. And the poor? Well, those sons of bitches aren't paying anything at all. No, they're the consumers of government largess.
Oh, but The Fair Tax doesn't shift that much tax burden you say? The rich will still get screwed and the middle-class won't see much difference? The poor are protected? BULLSHIT! If you want to cling to to that silly argument why not keep our present system? If there is no major shift in the tax burden with the Fair Tax then why bother to change the present system at all? What will you gain?
4)Of course there will be a shift in tax burden. And do you think Teddy Kennedy and the rest of the Democrat socialists aren't paying attention? Do you really think the rabble aren't going to vote for the commies when they realize they might have to pay their fair share? Please. You just fall off the political turnip truck? The Fair tax hasn't an infinitesimal chance of ever passing through the Congressional gauntlet. Which is exactly why Huckabee claims to support it!
5) Ever heard of the black market? Right now scores of Islamists are buying low tax cigarettes in North Carolina and trucking them up north and selling them in the liberal infested high tax tobacco states at a substantial profit. Why? C'mon, you know why. Now, what do you think is going to happen with a 24%consumption tax to be avoided by selling goods underground? Do you know nothing of the entrepreneurial spirit? Do you know nothing of criminal cartels?
6) I'm all for changing the system. But the Fair Tax puts the cart before the horse. The problem is that the Fair Tax needs to be at 24% to remain revenue neutral to our present system. If we want to change the present system we need to start by cutting all the disgusting programs first. Let's reduce the cost of government by, say, 67% before we discuss how to change the tax system. The problem is every bit as much spending as the financing of it. Our tax system is a mess because a majority can impose taxes on a minority. When the majority has to start paying their fair share they'll scream bloody murder!
Which is why the Fair Tax has ZERO chance of every being implemented democratically.
7) Have I read the book? That's the usual question to Fair Tax agnostics. No, I haven't read it. Frankly, if you can't explain a true fair tax system to me in 750 words or less then it probably hasn't a chance in hell with the public anyway.
So folks, there you have it. Now who will join me in accepting that our country is going down the socialist rat-hole and there is no hope of escape?
Z, one of these days I suspect you stop asking me to comment on the columns here. Or at least you'll wise up and ask me when I'm in a better mood! ;-)
Mike
I like you in a bad mood, Mike..rather you didn't have the flu, but a bad mood keeps you informative AND feisty...doesn't get better than that!
I don't know how I feel about this Fair Tax because if you asked me about my knowledge of economics on a scale of 1 to 10, I'd have to say a minus 1457. Maybe more. Right after how the television works. Or radio. Or husbands!?
But, seriously, folks..I'm looking forward to Norwegian Wood to come and respond......this should get good!
$125K tax on a $500K HOUSE?! You just talked me out of it...THAT much 'economics' I GET!!
Z thank you SO much for posting this because this is something WE WILL do eventually OR go broke with socialism creep. I'm a HUGE supporter of the FairTax and when I get back this afternoon I'm going to dig into this thread and help figure out the misinformation. :-) Too bad the Huckster is such a fatally flawed candidate...
Morgan
MORGAN: Please come back and have it out with Mike! He's convincing in his views. What I'd like us to see here are the divergent viewpoints and WHY each has merit. If they do!! I go back and forth on this issue. Let's hear it...I'm looking forward to you taking this on here. z
I can see positives and negatives. The negatives are:
- overseas sales skyrocketing
- a sharp downturn in certain industries such as the auto industry as used cars won't carry the tax
- more difficulty in purchasing your first home
- insurance services being 25% higher
The positives:
- illegals will pay their share of taxes
- no IRS
- current house mortgages not being taxed
- no IRS
- only paying tax on what you spend which will encourage people to save
- no IRS
- not being double taxed
- no IRS
- always knowing how much your tax will be and never needing help to figure it out
- no IRS
- taxing people equally regardless of income
Hey, Frank Family....your positives make a good list.
Can't we somehow deal with the negatives? Somehow? sure we can.
"No IRS" Music to my ears, huh?
We'll get Mike, Norwegianwood (a huge fan of the Fair Tax) and Morgan(I believe he also likes it very much), and settle the problem right here.
Then, I'll alert the media! Great comment, to be frank!!
Z I don't have as much time as I thought, it's shoulder rehab time, and then off to the Super Bowl party. There are a few losers with the FairTax:
1. K-Street lobbyists who all make 6 and 7 figure incomes lobbying congress on behalf of their corporate clients. Never mind that the corporations they represent would be FAR better off WITH the FairTax, the lobbyists would soon be job hunting and they have Congress' ear!
2. Certain CPA's and tax lawyers. Most CPA's, like Nanette make a living running businesses, but some do taxes.
3. Three quarters of the IRS would be put out of work. :-)
I don't have the time today to delve into Mike's "objections" (FPM Mike?) but right off the bat I can tell you the Franks' objections are factually incorrect.
"The FairTax, Answering the Objections" is coming out in 9 or 10 days.
Once you understand that RIGHT NOW there is approximately a 23% imbedded tax built into the price of everything you buy due to production taxes, labor taxes, and delivery taxes, you're halfway home!
Go GIANTS!!!
Morgan
Yes, FPM Mike...and yes, have a great time watching the game!
I'll look forward to the franks and MIke responding, and that "Answering the Objections" thing coming out. Thanks, Morgan.
see you later...have fun! Of course, all I want to know about Super Bowl is what everybody ATE while watching! I'm a Laker's Girl!! (basketball, of course!..I just didn't want MIke to tell me "There are no football teams called Lakers!"..which I"M SURE he would have done!)(smile) z
I might offer a different view. I write this as an ex-optimist. I am now a pessimist. Recall that I wrote our country is doomed to socialism and all is lost!
This is a complicated subject. I'm still grumpy, tired and recovering from the flu so permit me to be brief and summarize my points thusly...
NWW=Sorry about the flu Mike, hope you feel better soon. So then I won't feel guilty about emasculating you, as I am about to do, on the Fair Tax issue. On the hopelessness, and this is my personal belief, take it or leave, I will not be offended, I believe that worry is an expression of lack of faith: I trust the God not only knows all, but knows better than we here think we do. That isn't to say don't act, but act with the knowledge that, at the end of the day, God's will WILL reign. That's my take on that. Now…for your emasculation : )
1) A 24% consumption tax? I have to pay a quarter out of every dollar I purchase to the federal government? If I buy a $500,000 house I owe the federal government $125,000? Are you out of your goddamn mind? I haven't even touched local and state taxes yet.
NWW=First, it's 23% not 24%...I'm a stickler for details that directly affect my wallet. Apparently, my explanation was too subtle: did you miss the part about how you are CURRENTLY paying about 33% out of every dollar? I don't see the complaint here. That you would be aware of it, rather than having it embedded into your costs and hidden from you? How odd…
You didn't even attempt to calculate that the wood, nails, plumbing materials, wiring, tile, sinks, window, plans, workers etc…all we be costing each employer LESS. By about that same percentage. In our capitalist economy there is no way that none of those savings are going to bring down prices…that would be the unlikely scenario. So, the house isn't going cost $500, 000.00 anymore, therefore the tax burden is mostly absorbed. Beyond that, buy a preexisting home, no tax.
2)I'm through venting, thank you. And ready to move on to why the fair tax, though well-intentioned, is stupid to try to evolve to in a single fell swoop.
NWW=Okay, this point doesn't seem to make one, so moving on…
3)Fair Tax. That implies that the current tax system is not fair. And that is correct, it isn't. But any time you change any kind of system you're going to create winners and losers, regardless of what is fair (or not). And who will be the winners and losers? Quite simple: The rich are getting screwed and the middle class aren't paying anywhere near their fair share. And the poor? Well, those sons of bitches aren't paying anything at all. No, they're the consumers of government largess.
Oh, but The Fair Tax doesn't shift that much tax burden you say? The rich will still get screwed and the middle-class won't see much difference? The poor are protected? BULLSHIT! If you want to cling to to that silly argument why not keep our present system? If there is no major shift in the tax burden with the Fair Tax then why bother to change the present system at all? What will you gain?
NWW=Oh, Mikey, perhaps the fever is getting in the way of the synopses..because the prebate is based off of the current "poverty" standard, doesn't mean that it 'helps the poor more than anybody else.' Think Mike, it is based on NUMBER in household when it applies a cut in the taxes on basic needs. Not ALL poor households will fair as well. (The smarter argument for you here, would have been to suggest that it encourages people to make more babies…: )) This is more fair because it is not based on income at all. It is based purely on what it costs each family, no matter their income, to house, feed, and cloth a family..no matter their income. So, the wealthy person with 8 kids will still fair better than the poor person with 1, in terms of the prebate. All else, is up to you the consumer. You can decide as a wealthy or middle class individual to invest your money wisely without having to worry what tax bracket that might bump you up into or how much capital gains taxes will take off the top. The full benefit of your pay. Look, personally, I don't think income tax IS Constitutional, that Amendment ought to be repealed. Why should we be stradled with a referendum that allowed one generation to place us all under the thumb of the IRS? Sorry, I appreciate the government needs money to run. I would rather have a little more control over how much I am willing to give them each month. Beyond all the other benefits of the Fair Tax; my freedom is paramount.
4)Of course there will be a shift in tax burden. And do you think Teddy Kennedy and the rest of the Democrat socialists aren't paying attention? Do you really think the rabble aren't going to vote for the commies when they realize they might have to pay their fair share? Please. You just fall off the political turnip truck? The Fair tax hasn't an infinitesimal chance of ever passing through the Congressional gauntlet. Which is exactly why Huckabee claims to support it!
NWW=There are currently 67 signers on the House Bill…67. And it hasn't been around that long. And, how come you are arguing both sides of the argument? You just said that the rich would be hurt MOST by it, and then you suggest that the POOR will run to Kennedy for having to pay their fair share?...I'm confused. At least, I presume by 'rabble' you mean the poor: )..This isn't so much an argument as it is a resignation to keeping the status quo, not because it's better, but because, well, it would take so much effort and probably would not ever get passed. Mike, snap out of it man! Name me the change for good that EVER came about easily..no the government isn't going to hand us back what we allowed them to steal from us, duh. Of course, it'll take a fight. But, that is not an argument NOT to fight.
5) Ever heard of the black market? Right now scores of Islamists are buying low tax cigarettes in North Carolina and trucking them up north and selling them in the liberal infested high tax tobacco states at a substantial profit. Why? C'mon, you know why. Now, what do you think is going to happen with a 24%consumption tax to be avoided by selling goods underground? Do you know nothing of the entrepreneurial spirit? Do you know nothing of criminal cartels?
NWW=Ironically, that black market and those cartel folk will ALL be contributing the very institutions that currently they only burden with their illegal behavior. Up to this point, they avoid paying taxes. With the Fair Tax, everything they buy is taxed. AND, they don't get the prebate unless they have a legal SSN or TIN. I won't have to KEEP restating the whole the price will NOT be 23% higher than today's price thing will I? It's so tedious Mike.
6) I'm all for changing the system. But the Fair Tax puts the cart before the horse. The problem is that the Fair Tax needs to be at 24% to remain revenue neutral to our present system. If we want to change the present system we need to start by cutting all the disgusting programs first. Let's reduce the cost of government by, say, 67% before we discuss how to change the tax system. The problem is every bit as much spending as the financing of it. Our tax system is a mess because a majority can impose taxes on a minority. When the majority has to start paying their fair share they'll scream bloody murder!
Which is why the Fair Tax has ZERO chance of every being implemented democratically.
NWW=Okay, it's 23%. And, with their income being directly related to consumer spending, i.e. voice, they will HAVE to cut spending. Besides, it's a failed argument to say that both cannot be done simultaneous. Where's your argument? If you think cutting the fat from the government IS possible, as you indicate, where is the evidence that it cannot happen UNDER the Fair Tax? You don't offer any argument. You just say, it won't happen or work…thanks, so much for the opinion Mike, but please, recognize that it does not suffice for supportive evidence of anything.
7) Have I read the book? That's the usual question to Fair Tax agnostics. No, I haven't read it. Frankly, if you can't explain a true fair tax system to me in 750 words or less then it probably hasn't a chance in hell with the public anyway.
NWW=Given that the current tax code is 6700 pages long and growing and a RAGING success even with YOU, so I would beg to differ.
So folks, there you have it. Now who will join me in accepting that our country is going down the socialist rat-hole and there is no hope of escape?
NWW=So, basically, your arguments are that you have no legitimate argument, you just don't think it'll pass, because the government won't allow us to have what we demand…Good thing the founders didn't have to cope with you under the influenza…rest up. And come back when you can make a cogent argument on the merits, rather than just supplanting your opinion and feverish ravings as substitutes, okay? I look forward to it.
Z, one of these days I suspect you stop asking me to comment on the columns here. Or at least you'll wise up and ask me when I'm in a better mood! ;-)
NWW=You KNOW we all love you Mike. Get well. I mean that…I look forward to the next round. : )
norwegianwood
Mike
Originally it was 17%...do I want to pay that kind of tax in my financial situation? Just write off 23% of my small income?
I can't afford it!
Heck, between Californistan AND the federal government, my late and I paid over 35% a year in taxes...who can afford it?
I do like the idea of retiring the irs though...
tmw
Well, TMW, but that tax is on what you WANT to buy, not what they tell you to pay just because you have to...right?
Norwegianwood.....I'm looking forward to Mike's rebuttal......all good information. thanks SO much. z
NWW... First off, I'm feeling better today and much less grumpy!
That being the case, let me start over and try to spell out my concerns with the Fair Tax more succinctly. As it is, I'm not sure you adequately addressed my previous concerns.
- First off, I'm not opposed to a consumption-based tax. We are in agreement that our present system is most unfair. I too wish we could repeal the 16th Amendment to the Constitution that permitted our present class warfare inducing system.
- The Fair Tax has advantages for sure. First and foremost, it makes visible to people how much tax they are really paying as opposed to all the hidden taxation in the present system. The most important aspect of revealing the true tax is that over time voters will elect conservative politicians that will reduce the rate of the consumption tax. That it is the best long-term feature of the Fair Tax.
- I stand corrected, it's 23%, not 24%. Or so the authors claim. Some independent economists say that the Fair Tax low-balls the percentage required to remain revenue neutral, meaning the rate necessary to produce the same level amount of tax revenue as the present system. Some say the Fair Tax rate would have to be as high as 32% to remain revenue neutral. I don't know the right answer, mind you. I just want to point out that 23% might be too low according to some.
- My biggest issue with the Fair tax isn't so much a complaint against the tax itself. To me its more a matter of denial of one aspect of the tax by Fair Tax advocates. And that is that there will be a HUGE shift in tax burden from the so-called rich to the middle class. Mind you, I see this as an ENORMOUS benefit. But it is here that makes the political viability of the Fair Tax very unlikely. Voters will simply not adopt a system where they will pay more tax, at least in the short run. This is the point you're in denial about. You disagree there is a major shift in tax burden. You're simply wrong here.
-A big problem I see in adopting the Fair Tax is the economic havoc it'll create in whole industries if the system is, as its advocates propose, literally adopted over night. The only alternative is to swap our present system in a phased approached to soften the economic impact of changing to a radically different system. And make no bones about it the Fair Tax is a radically different approach! The problem with a phased approach is that it will straddle us with BOTH an income tax and a national sales tax. I have ZERO confidence our politicians would ever complete the transition from an income tax to a full consumption tax. No, we'll be stuck with BOTH systems and, Katie bar the door, the government will have TWO revenue streams to beat us to death with.
- You glossed over the black market creating aspect completely. You claim that hookers, thieves, whatever, won't be able to avoid paying taxes as they do now by failing to claim income on their tax returns. You are right, but you're missing the point. The Fair Tax will create a whole NEW black market underground of people selling wares without collecting taxes. And 23% is a big chunk of change to avoid. You're naive to think the Fair Tax won't create a whole new class of tax-avoidance criminals. They'll have every incentive. Hey lady, wanna buy a watch (Mike now unfurls his trench coat to reveal a fine array of fine diamond studded timepieces).
-The previous point leads to yet another fallacy of the Fair Tax. Advocates claim it will abolish the IRS. No it won't. They'll be a whole new army of Feds patrolling every street corner to ensure the enormous 23% tax is being paid with every transaction. I believe it will take more, not less, Feds to ensure compliance.
- Which brings me to my final point. The consumption tax can be a productive and great idea. But a 23% tax is too high. We need to reduce the size and scope of government first so the transition to a radically different tax system will have less of an impact on how America does business.
When you started your rebuttal, NW, you invoked God. God is indeed a wonderful and blessed thing. But have no illusions, not even God can keep the socialists out of your pockets.
Me, I'm giving up. Time to go build a cabin up in the Sierra-Nevada and watch from my mountaintop retreat as the world implodes down in the valley.
The Fair Tax has no chance of adoption anymore than economic illiterates that vote Democratic today will suddenly see the light and part with their precious government subsidies.
We are all doomed.
Mike
- I stand corrected, it's 23%, not 24%. Or so the authors claim. Some independent economists say that the Fair Tax low-balls the percentage required to remain revenue neutral, meaning the rate necessary to produce the same level amount of tax revenue as the present system. Some say the Fair Tax rate would have to be as high as 32% to remain revenue neutral. I don't know the right answer, mind you. I just want to point out that 23% might be too low according to some.
NWW=I know there are folks out there trying to scare people into believing that 23% is not enough to be revenue neutral. But, the Fair Tax Initiative was born from a $20 million, 10 year long study by economists and accountants. I am pretty confident that the 10yrs study will prove out to be more accurate than the agenda driven fear mongering of folks who have given it a perusal.
- My biggest issue with the Fair tax isn't so much a complaint against the tax itself. To me its more a matter of denial of one aspect of the tax by Fair Tax advocates. And that is that there will be a HUGE shift in tax burden from the so-called rich to the middle class. Mind you, I see this as an ENORMOUS benefit. But it is here that makes the political viability of the Fair Tax very unlikely. Voters will simply not adopt a system where they will pay more tax, at least in the short run. This is the point you're in denial about. You disagree there is a major shift in tax burden. You're simply wrong here.
NWW=Have you read your current tax code recently? My accountant just sent out a letter in which she spells out that refunds this year will be late because of the ATM. Under the ATM a single person filing who makes $33, 750.00; Married filing joint or quailifying widow (er) who make over $45,000.00, or married filing separate making over $22,000.00 are ALL consider to be earning 'higher income' subject to the ATM. Sorry, MIke, but I think the middle class is ALREADY the class that's being saddled with the lion's share. The very very wealthy do not pay a dime in income tax, because they don't 'earn' an income. They keep their money in off shore accounts to protect it from the IRS' scrutiny. Buffet even stated that he pays less in tax than his secretary, and that is true. What you fail to concede is that every consumer is already paying an embedded tax at the register and anyone who is earning more than $26, 400.00 is paying additional total of roughly 15% when you combine SS tax, medicare tax (neither of which can be refunded) and their FICA. While those percentages may graduate higher with incomes that you would still call middle class, I would argue that those people at those brackets have many protections in place to alleviate said tax burdens as well, such as mortgage interest, other real estate investment, IRAs etc. So, they are not paying what you think. That's why the feds started this whole ATM to begin with…that's not the upper class. Tht's squarely ON the entire middle class from low end on up. And that lower end likely doesn't have the income to invest in real estate or IRAs. So, I don't buy your scenario in total. What you also do not calculate is that the upper middle class will still be purchasing their Lexus' and their $500, 000.00 homes. They so, they will still be paying proportionally, the larger amount of the taxes. But they won't BE 23% higher as I explained. So, I still argue that NO the middle class will NOT be paying more than they are currently paying. You have not proved that to me here. If I am already paying 33%, a 23% consumer tax is not MORE. No matter how you slice it.
-A big problem I see in adopting the Fair Tax is the economic havoc it'll create in whole industries if the system is, as its advocates propose, literally adopted over night. The only alternative is to swap our present system in a phased approached to soften the economic impact of changing to a radically different system. And make no bones about it the Fair Tax is a radically different approach! The problem with a phased approach is that it will straddle us with BOTH an income tax and a national sales tax. I have ZERO confidence our politicians would ever complete the transition from an income tax to a full consumption tax. No, we'll be stuck with BOTH systems and, Katie bar the door, the government will have TWO revenue streams to beat us to death with.
NWW= I think that you are just borrowing trouble Mike. If the gov't is able to shrink its spending now, while, say diverting the necessary funds to states to be on board by a date certain, say by Jan of the following year, why can't the swap be done over night? Let the IRS remain only to contend with those last year filings. Matter of fact, many of their employees could have already transferred to other federal jobs where they are more needed like, I don't know INS, border patrol, ICE…US consulates over seas…I think you are 'creating' havoc where there need not be any. Any time a company goes to a new system or an upgrade they deal will face the same types of issues. Italy and all of Europe changed their money system for crap sake! This is neither insurmountable or even rocket science. All states will need to be set up with a system similar to what they currently use to collect sales tax…okay. Do that 'before' you make the change. The only really expensive areas will be those states, few, who do not currently have a system in place for collecting sales tax. It won't take much to audit that 'states'…Mike. Their revenue based from a percentage of sales had better match that that they are basing the collection of the federal tax on. And, that will be the 'state's' problem to follow up on interms of follow up. Because the Fair TAx plan includes a fee to the state's for 'collecting' the tax for them…um, if they are not doing it well, not only do they lose the fee, but they get fined big time and may lose some of their discretionary income from the fed…pretty good incentive to keep things above board. So, organize with the states, informing them of what they will need and help them to get there, WHILE cutting spending on useless and wastefull spending, and put the IRS on notice to start having their federal employees look into the other federal positions where they have priority for new positions, keeping only a skeleton staff for that last years returns. On that date certain, the change is made. Initially, for a few months, you will see that yes, the prices are probably not reflecting the company savings -since they won't have felt them yet-BUT, you will have in your paychecks the money that previously was being withheld AND the prebate money…I don’t' think the 'pinch' will quite be what you suggest, or the difficutly quite what you make of it. Matter of fact, Alan Keyes who is in Texas right now, says he has a plan for precisely HOW to implement the Fair Tax once it's passed. I confess, I have not seen his plan yet, but he was to reveal it while campaigning in Texas where there is tremendous support for the Fair Tax Inititiative.
- You glossed over the black market creating aspect completely. You claim that hookers, thieves, whatever, won't be able to avoid paying taxes as they do now by failing to claim income on their tax returns. You are right, but you're missing the point. The Fair Tax will create a whole NEW black market underground of people selling wares without collecting taxes. And 23% is a big chunk of change to avoid. You're naive to think the Fair Tax won't create a whole new class of tax-avoidance criminals. They'll have every incentive. Hey lady, wanna buy a watch (Mike now unfurls his trench coat to reveal a fine array of fine diamond studded timepieces).
NWW= Well, I didn't 'gloss over it' so much as discount it out of hand. LOL It's the same argument that cigarette proponents said would happen if the feds and states raised tax on cigarettes. AND your assertion IGNORES that the COSTS would go down on the actual PRICE so the extra tax would be absorbed. Which is why I discounted it. Rising taxes on alcohol has not created a huge black market for it, and neither has it happened so far with cigarettes though, as a smoker, I have seen the costs go up from $10 a carton when I started smoking to over $32.00 now. I would not look to the 'black market' and 'criminalize' my 'legal' behavior and I don't see the evidence that very many others would either. You offer no EVIDENCE to support your claim; you ignore that the 23% will be on a LOWER priced item once the savings are conveyed by the corporations, and as I showed, clearly there have already been many tax increases on cigarettes and alcohol that did NOT have the effect you speak about . So I think the EVIDENCE is on my side of the argument. That''s why I discounted the claim out of hand. It was not supported by anything 'factual.'
-The previous point leads to yet another fallacy of the Fair Tax. Advocates claim it will abolish the IRS. No it won't. They'll be a whole new army of Feds patrolling every street corner to ensure the enormous 23% tax is being paid with every transaction. I believe it will take more, not less, Feds to ensure compliance.
NWW=I handled this succinctly, in my opinion, above. The states will receive a fee for collection (this is IN the FT Bill) and therefore the STATES will be responsible for collecting and 'checking' up. Since MOST states, although not all, currently already collect for instate sales taxes, it isn't rocket science to compare 'receipts'…
- Which brings me to my final point. The consumption tax can be a productive and great idea. But a 23% tax is too high. We need to reduce the size and scope of government first so the transition to a radically different tax system will have less of an impact on how America does business.
NWW=Again, I dealt with this above. They can and should be simultaneously and you have NOT supported an argument as to how or why they should or could not be done in such a manner.
When you started your rebuttal, NW, you invoked God. God is indeed a wonderful and blessed thing. But have no illusions, not even God can keep the socialists out of your pockets.
Me, I'm giving up. Time to go build a cabin up in the Sierra-Nevada and watch from my mountaintop retreat as the world implodes down in the valley.
The Fair Tax has no chance of adoption anymore than economic illiterates that vote Democratic today will suddenly see the light and part with their precious government subsidies.
We are all doomed.
NWW= My 'invoking' God, was with regards to your general hopelessness about the country and the direction it is headed. It was offered mostly to try to bring some hopefulness to someone whose opinions, insights, and normally good humor, I have come to respect and admire. I am not a person who deals well with depression or 'the sky is falling' type dialogue. My feeling is that it is within our power to alter our perspective on these things. I help to keep my outlook hopeful, by reminding myself that tomorrow is not truly mine and therefore worry is really a waste of time. I remind myself that God is in control, and I find comfort. So, it was intended only to try to bring comfort to a friend. It was not offered with regard to hoping that God or anyone else but ME will be fighting to keep socialists out of my pockets. LOL On that we do most assuredly agree.
Good talking to you Mike…I do hope that your mood changes though. I miss the jovial, quick witted, Mike…is he anywhere around?
norwegianwood
Mike
Post a Comment