IRS Scandals and Immigration Reform - ONE SOLUTION!

[Chica Chaser]

I would assume the same thing, no fairtax. There would still be a duty on product coming across the border which would be paid by the buyer, as it is today.

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by nwarounder

I'd like to have anything practical that abolishes the IRS, but Faitax.org has been at this for what, 10 or 15 years now (?). Very good points and again, nothing wrong with the idea, but I just don't think that particular organization has the brains to figure it out. I mean we can discuss it and come up with possible solutions, but they cant after so many years and their solution is "They don't think it will happen"? I think they are in it for the money only, seriously I wouldn't donate. And by no means should we ever fall for the "well, let's pass it first and find out what's in it later".

I'm glad you didn't waste any money on donations. The FairTax, at least in the form championed by its supporters, doesn't have the slightest chance of ever being enacted. And arguments in favor of it collapse like a sand castle in a storm when subjected to scrutiny. The fact that it's a very regressive tax makes it a political non-starter from the outset. Additionally, the numbers don't work. It wouldn't even come close to raising as much revenue as the present tax system.

The problem is not that the idea isn't being sold properly; it's that non-wealthy taxpayers don't like it very much when they find out that it would be a huge tax cut for the affluent.

But on one level, I understand the appeal. Americans have a visceral hatred for dealing with the IRS!

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Damn, nwa! How refreshing to get a serious question, with no flames attached...

Now there's a thick, juicy slice of hypocrisy!

Since when have you ever disagreed with anyone without hurling insults? When I pointed out the erroneousness of your FairTax progressivity claim, you immediately popped off with comments that I "sounded stupid," and that I needed to "learn something."

And yet you moved blithely on when I challenged you (in post #36) to back up your claim of progressivity. If you choose to post again, then I suggest that you either make an effort to back up that claim, or at least refrain from insulting the intelligence of those who are much better informed.

It's always smart to read and learn about the topic under discussion before shooting off your mouth. You can often save yourself a little embarrassment that way!

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by CJ7

All valid Social Security cardholders who are U.S. residents receive a monthly prebate equivalent to the FairTax paid on essential goods and services, also known as the poverty level expenditures. The prebate is paid in advance, in equal installments each month. The size of the prebate is determined by the Department of Health & Human Services’ poverty level guideline multiplied by the tax rate. This is a well-accepted, long-used poverty-level calculation that includes food, clothing, shelter, transportation, medical care, etc


of course not, a skeleton staff can keep up with everyone who has a ss card

eos

Gotcha fucker...LOL

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServ...ut_faq_answers

All valid Social Security cardholders who are U.S. residents receive a monthly prebate equivalent to the FairTax paid on essential goods and services, also known as the poverty level expenditures.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

I'm glad you didn't waste any money on donations. The FairTax, at least in the form championed by its supporters, doesn't have the slightest chance of ever being enacted. And arguments in favor of it collapse like a sand castle in a storm when subjected to scrutiny. It's been subject to more scrutiny than any other proposal out there. It has come up beautifully when examined by those without a vested interest in the current system. The fact that it's a very regressive tax makes it a political non-starter from the outset. Additionally, the numbers don't work. It wouldn't even come close to raising as much revenue as the present tax system.

The problem is not that the idea isn't being sold properly; it's that non-wealthy taxpayers don't like it very much when they find out that it would be a huge tax cut for the affluent.

But on one level, I understand the appeal. Americans have a visceral hatred for dealing with the IRS!



Now there's a thick, juicy slice of hypocrisy!

Since when have you ever disagreed with anyone without hurling insults? When I pointed out the erroneousness of your FairTax progressivity claim, you immediately popped off with comments that I "sounded stupid," and that I needed to "learn something." I wasn't hurling insults, you really did sound stupid, and you really do need to learn something. I was trying to help you, Cap'n.

And yet you moved blithely on when I challenged you (in post #36) to back up your claim of progressivity. If you choose to post again, then I suggest that you either make an effort to back up that claim, or at least refrain from insulting the intelligence of those who are much better informed. When someone who is better informed, I'll respond in kind. So far, that hasn't happened in this thread.

It's always smart to read and learn about the topic under discussion before shooting off your mouth. You can often save yourself a little embarrassment that way! You really need to take your own advice. I'm not the least bit embarrassed by my accurate recitation of the FairTax.

Learn more, and sound less stupid. Click here: www.fairtax.org

[Texas Contrarian]

COG, critical thinking is not exactly one of your long suits, is it?

Suppose a relative of yours approached you for advice on whether he should buy a new Ford truck, and wanted information regarding such things as quality, performance, and reliability. Would you just send him to www.ford.com and leave it at that?

If not, then why would you send someone to www.fairtax.org for objective information? All the site offers is a lot of happy talk and simplistic platitudes. Every now and then over the years, I've checked in on it to see whether those folks ever bothered to start presenting concepts in a straightforward, non-demagogic way that stands up to scrutiny. (The answer is, of course, no.) I've encountered many FairTax supporters who are well-meaning, but simply don't understand the issue. But never before have I discussed it with such a gratuitously insulting, closed-minded, ignorant fool such as you. And you implore me to "learn something" and claim that I "sounded stupid?" Now that's rich!

Earlier, you dodged the most basic question; that of progressivity. You claimed that the FairTax is progressive, when obviously the reverse is the case. And it's very regressive. That's not just an opinion with which you disagree; it's simply a fact.

Look, I'd love it if this were a workable idea, and if it had even a ghost of a chance of ever being enacted. My tax returns are nightmarishly complex and I have to employ tax counsel as well as CPAs to be sure that I don't run afoul of some arcane law or regulation. Do I sound like a tax-happy IRS fan and big government lover?

And from a purely selfish standpoint, I would find it quite delicious to get a huge tax cut! But who would make up the shortfall? Claims that the FairTax is revenue neutral are completely ridiculous. Replacing the whole federal tax system with a simple, 30% national sales tax lands more than a little bit short, and for a variety of reasons. See how far you can get (politically) when you have to admit to middle class America that those a bit higher on the income scale would get most of the benefit from replacing the current system with the FairTax.

But one's gotta love your "debating" technique! When you're afraid things aren't looking good for you, just dodge the key questions completely, call everyone else ignorant, declare victory, and go home! When I discuss an issue with someone more knowledgeable on a topic than I am, I am generally eager to listen and learn, as I have a fairly curious mind. But that's just me. YOMV! (And obviously does.)

In any event, it's always wise to avoid losing control and letting your ignorance, impetuousness, and obnoxiousness write checks that your brain can't cash.

[i'va biggen]

I am amazed anyone thinks a tax is fair

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

I am amazed anyone thinks a tax is fair

I thought the left thought all taxes were fair so long as they were paid by someone making more money than them.

[i'va biggen]

Beats the shit out of me what the left thinks. Thought the right wants to do away with all the taxes.

[Glenn Quagmire]

I do like the idea of a national sales tax for a couple of reasons:

I like the idea of no forms, no worrying about having to pay taxes every year, no penalties, etc.. However, it would create an additional burden on businesses to collect, file paperwork, etc. to pass those taxes back to the goverment.

It would tax the underground economy. Hookers, drug dealers, pimps, and other criminals would not escape the tax. If they want to spend any of their criminal gains, they would pay tax when they purchase goods and services. Want a fancy boat? You pay tax on it. Want a mansion? You pay a tax on it. Want more cars? You pay national sales tax on each one you buy..
Point is, there is a a huge underground economy that does not pay taxes.


That is all I really wanted to say. I am not going to argue the minutiae here. I just like the idea better than the current tax system

[CuteOldGuy]

Cap'n, your saying it doesn't make it so. Read the books, read the website, do some independent research and compare.

I don't know how you can say the tax is regressive when the poor will actually not have to any tax at all. Here's where you lose credibility (well, if you had any). The tax is only on NEW goods and services. Used items are NOT TAXED AT ALL! Buy a used car? NO TAX! Buy a house from someone? NO TAX! Your food and necessities are covered by the prebate. So if you buy second hand clothes, cars, houses, etc. there is NO TAX! Plus, you get to keep YOUR ENTIRE PAYCHECK! You earn $10 per hour, you GET $10 per hour.

Now of course, someone will pipe up with "What about state taxes?" Of course, this is referring to FEDERAL taxes. Your state may vary.

[CuteOldGuy]

This may even make it easier for you.

http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/FairTax%2...on%20chart.pdf

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

This may even make it easier for you.

http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/FairTax%2...on%20chart.pdf

Yes, that does make it easier for me. Thanks!

More particularly, it makes it quite easy to demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have no interest whatsoever in learning anything about this issue. I already pointed out that the FairTax website contains nothing more than happy talk and disingenuous nonsense. Neither you nor the creators of the site made any effort to address the fundamental concerns I raised in my earlier posts.

You have a habit of bringing up the FairTax at fairly frequent intervals. It would behoove you to make an effort to actually learn something about it before doing so again.

[Chica Chaser]

An interesting rebuttal from FairTax.org to FactCheck.org analysis

FactCheck Analysis http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspi...e_fairtax.html

FairTax Rebuttal (Word doc download copied below) http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFil...xrebuttal1.doc

June 14, 2007

We very strongly disagree with FactCheck.org’s analysis of the FairTax, believing that it failed to escape the class warfare arguments the public has been conditioned over the past 50 years to accept as the only true measure of tax proposals and that FactCheck has uncritically accepted many misleading arguments by defenders of the income tax system who profit handsomely from the status quo.

The FairTax, in truth, represents a very different kind of federal tax proposal that defies common definitions because it entirely changes the paradigm of taxation at the federal level. Can a consumption tax be fairly compared to a tax on income, for example? An “apples to apples” comparison suggests that in order to do so, both must be expressed in either “inclusive” or “exclusive” terms (whether the amount of tax is included in the calculation of the total or excluded). This is a difficult challenge because sales taxes are almost always expressed in an “exclusive” manner, but income taxes are almost always expressed in an “inclusive” manner.

Although 85 percent of the admittedly unscientific sample of letter writers noted in FactCheck’s article understand the difference, although explanations of the two calculation methods abound on the FairTax Web site, and although every other tax proposal (as well as the income tax itself) is described in “inclusive” terms, FactCheck unfairly spins even our ubiquitous notes on this distinction as somehow misleading the public. We would have preferred a more fair, neutral, and accurate description that “comparisons with income tax rates are difficult because…”.

Similarly, can a proposal that entirely untaxes the poor but also offers the elimination of the corporate income taxes and capital gains taxes be fairly described as "regressive"? FactCheck embraces one traditional view, wrongly applied in this case, that any tax proposal that does not impose higher rates on the wealthy can fairly be described as “unfair” or even “regressive.”

In our view (and that of many economists), the true measure of the fairness of a tax is not what the rate may be but rather how much wealth each income segment, at different periods of life, has left to spend on itself after taxes are paid. By this measure, the FairTax is the only tax proposal that actually increases the purchasing power of every income segment while delivering the greatest improvement to the poor, the second greatest improvement to those in the middle class, and the smallest – but still significant – relative improvement to those at upper-income levels.

This calculation, unlike critics’ flawed descriptions of retail consumption taxes, incorporates the “progressive” benefit of eliminating the FICA taxes, looks more deeply at spending at different periods of a citizen’s life, and takes into account the elimination of not only the significant cost of compliance with the complexities of the income tax system but the FairTax effects of lower interest rates, elimination of downward pressure on wages, untaxing capital accumulation, investment, and growth. Although all of our $20 million of research was made available to FactCheck.org, the article relies on critics’ contentions to the contrary for its assessment of “who benefits,” largely without disclosing those critics’ assumptions or research. We flatly reject as flawed FactCheck’s narrow conclusions of who benefits under the FairTax.

FactCheck has also relied upon unnamed sources, as well as the discredited President’s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform, to wrongly conclude that the FairTax uses unsound accounting principles to arrive at the FairTax rate. Those more familiar with the science (and art) of economics accept that all conclusions in economics are conditioned upon assumptions and that much debate surrounds each assumption. But FactCheck skips over the point and counterpoint of the debate on whether taxing the government, as just one example, is sound (as is currently practiced at the federal level with FICA taxes and every purchase) and accepts unnamed critics’ contentions that this (and other methods) is not only unsound but that the FairTax did not take the apparent (but illusory) required increase in federal spending into account when calculating the FairTax rate. Inexplicably, FactCheck rejected the assurance by our chief economist that both revenues and spending were carefully accounted for and, instead, posits that an “accounting trick” is employed despite the fact that this assertion has been vigorously proven wrong in debate and published study.

Great wealth and profit, intensive academic activity, and congressional and lobbying power surround – and defend – the income tax system, but FactCheck failed to bring any measure of healthy skepticism to the self-interested claims of FairTax critics. We would have preferred that the article made clear that accounting methods differ, that economists examine the effect of taxes in different ways, and that debates continue over the complexities of the current (and proposed) tax systems. Instead, we believe this analysis to be unfair, inaccurate, and incomplete because FactCheck failed to assemble all the parts of the FairTax and consider the proposal as a new paradigm-shifting “whole,” but instead relied on self-interested critics to describe only “pieces” that do not account accurately for the positive effects on the economy and individual taxpayers when considered in its entirety. The entire description of the FairTax, our research, and a full rebuttal of this piece can be found at www.FairTax.org.

Like I said earlier, the entire concept of taxes has to be viewed from a totally different perspective when looking at a consumption tax rather than an income tax.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Would you like a simple solution to the continuing IRS scandals and Immigration Reform?

Two words:

THE FAIRTAX!!

Think about it. Under the FairTax, there would be no IRS to snoop on law abiding people for political purposes. Also, there would be a huge number of IRS employees needing jobs. Since they are already doing jobs no real American would ever want to do, they are perfectly suited to take over those jobs being done by illegal aliens, you know, the ones doing the jobs no real American would ever do.

We'd save tons of money, and at the same time, we'd be protecting our borders and culture.

It's a win-win all the way around!

I'm not in favor of the fair tax. my beef is with the prebate. it can be abused. I look at this as a reverse-income tax.

[Houston65]

I guess anyone that believes the Federal government has the right to be a party to transaction between two private citizens, or a citizen and a state has no solution at all.