A few questions about FairTax

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

Hey, T, would you ever DARE tell your employees they have to take a drastic paycut, or are you going to pass it on to the consumer?

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

The claim that the IRS will be eliminated under the FairTax is bogus. Although the national sales tax will be collected by the states from retailers, it is still a national sales tax, and as such, its collection will have to be overseen by some agency of the federal government. Just because the bureaucracy will no longer be called the IRS doesn't mean that it will be eliminated. According to The Fair Tax Act of 2005:

There shall be in the Department of the Treasury a Sales Tax Bureau to administer the national sales tax in those States where it is required pursuant to section 404, and to discharge other Federal duties and powers relating to the national sales tax (including those required by sections 402, 403, and 405). The Office of Revenue Allocation shall be within the Sales Tax Bureau.

Title II, chapter six, section 603 of The Fair Tax Act sets up the Problem Resolution Office and authorizes "problem resolution officers." There will still be tax courts according to title II, chapter six, section 602 and chapter nine, section 7451. Changing the phrase "Internal Revenue Service" to "Department of the Treasury" and "Commissioner of Internal Revenue" to "Secretary" doesn't eliminate the federal bureaucracy.

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

You are correct.

You also have never been audited...

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

The real problem with the FairTax is threefold. In " An Open Letter to the President, the Congress, and the American People Concerning Reform of the Federal Tax Code," which is posted on the FairTax website along with the endorsement of seventy-five "professional and university economists," we can see the trouble with the FairTax immediately:

We are not calling for elimination of federal taxation, which would be irresponsible and undesirable. Nor does our endorsement call for reduced federal spending. The tax reform plan we endorse is revenue neutral, collecting as much federal tax revenue as the current income tax code, including payroll withholding taxes.

There is only one word to describe the fact that the federal government now spends almost $3 trillion a year: obscene. At least 90 percent of what the federal government spends is unconstitutional, wasteful, or against the limited-government principles of the Founders. The only thing the FairTax does is change the way the state confiscates the wealth of its citizens. As Congressman Ron Paul says: "The real issue is total spending by government, not tax reform."

Because the FairTax is a consumption tax, Murray Rothbard's conclusion about consumption taxes is apropos:

The consumption tax, on the other hand, can only be regarded as a payment for permission-to-live. It implies that a man will not be allowed to advance or even sustain his own life, unless he pays, off the top, a fee to the State for permission to do so. The consumption tax does not strike me, in its philosophical implications, as one whit more noble, or less presumptuous, than the income tax.

The FairTax does nothing to tame the federal leviathan. The solution is nothing less than a drastic reduction or wholesale elimination of its revenue source. What is fair about allowing the government to confiscate 23 percent of the value of every new good and service? FairTax proponents may call it necessary legislation, but I call it highway robbery.

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

The main reason Washington DC wants to know how much you make is so they can divide us into two groups, one willing to "legally" steal from the other...

And the IRS is their Gestapo.

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

I would spend time on your assertions but they are specfious and pale in comparison to the problems we have now and the looming Social Security disaster. Do you have any idea how we are to meet promises based upon current payroll taxation?

 

[miles]

As I've said before, neither the flat tax nor the fair tax will ever happen in our lifetimes. When was the last time government did something which rendered itself less powerful?

 

[Ishmael]

There would be a very interesting period where all of this stuff was worked out. There would be winners and losers, no doubt.

Why do you say that T? Hmmmm. Is you're world one where someone ALWAYS lives at the expense of another? How sad is that world view?

Ishmael

 

[TWB]

It's not my business to judge "fair."

Look at Cheney. He just gave away 6 million.

Look at how much Bill Gates gives; what Carnegie left...

It's called freedom and it should not be a jealous creature nor one that capricioulsy picks life's winners and losers.

Nice dodge. Is one of the goals of tax policy some semblence of equity or fairness? I think it is. People tend to define that differently. However, I have never heard anyone say that a 10% tax on very wealthy and 23% on middle class is a desireable tax policy.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

I would spend time on your assertions but they are specfious and pale in comparison to the problems we have now and the looming Social Security disaster. Do you have any idea how we are to meet promises based upon current payroll taxation?

Translation: I don't have a rebuttal, so I'm going to make believe you don't have a point and change the subject.

If the Feds would leave the Social Security and Medicare funds the hell alone instead of dipping thier hands into them at ever opportunity this "disaster" could have been avoided.

 

[TWB]

Why do you say that T? Hmmmm. Is you're world one where someone ALWAYS lives at the expense of another? How sad is that world view?

Ishmael

That is not what I was saying. Funny you are "not my enemy" but you are always willing to put the most negative connotations on my comments.

What I was saying is that in any change (i.e. the change from an income to a fair tax) there will be people and entities who will be able to take advantage of the change. For instance, many employers would try to reduce the salaries of employees to the value of their paycheck after taxes. I think the decisions people would have to make during the change would be fascinating. And there would be winners and losers in that transition period.

 

[Ishmael]

The claim that the IRS will be eliminated under the FairTax is bogus. Although the national sales tax will be collected by the states from retailers, it is still a national sales tax, and as such, its collection will have to be overseen by some agency of the federal government. Just because the bureaucracy will no longer be called the IRS doesn't mean that it will be eliminated. According to The Fair Tax Act of 2005:

There shall be in the Department of the Treasury a Sales Tax Bureau to administer the national sales tax in those States where it is required pursuant to section 404, and to discharge other Federal duties and powers relating to the national sales tax (including those required by sections 402, 403, and 405). The Office of Revenue Allocation shall be within the Sales Tax Bureau.

Title II, chapter six, section 603 of The Fair Tax Act sets up the Problem Resolution Office and authorizes "problem resolution officers." There will still be tax courts according to title II, chapter six, section 602 and chapter nine, section 7451. Changing the phrase "Internal Revenue Service" to "Department of the Treasury" and "Commissioner of Internal Revenue" to "Secretary" doesn't eliminate the federal bureaucracy.

There is no one that has stated the IRS is going to 'go away' beyond no more intrusion into the individuals life. No more tax forms, no more withholding. If you have a tax, you have a tax collector, that's what they do. They just don't collect it from me anymore and for 99% of the population they will, for all intents and purposes, disappear.

Ishmael

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

Nice dodge. Is one of the goals of tax policy some semblence of equity or fairness? I think it is. People tend to define that differently. However, I have never heard anyone say that a 10% tax on very wealthy and 23% on middle class is a desireable tax policy.

What dodge? You're arguing with Marx, punish the rich, while I argue with with von Humboldt against the positive interference of the state.

Your 23% V 10% is bogus. If you continue to cling to the idea that wages will go down 23% without providing a modicum of proof other than that which I just refuted, we have nothing further to discuss because you become like lovelynice clinging to the controlled demolition conspiracy...

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

There is no one that has stated the IRS is going to 'go away' beyond no more intrusion into the individuals life. No more tax forms, no more withholding. If you have a tax, you have a tax collector, that's what they do. They just don't collect it from me anymore and for 99% of the population they will, for all intents and purposes, disappear.

Ishmael

I am quickly coming to the understanding that is exactly what they want; a system that punishes success; for they must be sure they will enjoy none in their lifetime...

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

That is not what I was saying. Funny you are "not my enemy" but you are always willing to put the most negative connotations on my comments.

What I was saying is that in any change (i.e. the change from an income to a fair tax) there will be people and entities who will be able to take advantage of the change. For instance, many employers would try to reduce the salaries of employees to the value of their paycheck after taxes. I think the decisions people would have to make during the change would be fascinating. And there would be winners and losers in that transition period.

Again; it's fair to ask, "Is that what you would do to your employees?"

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ishmael]

I am quickly coming to the unde4rstanding that is exactly what they want; a system that punishes success; for they must be sure they will enjoy none in their lifetime...

That's been mmy contention all along. Why else would they continuously bring up arguments by critics, many of which have already been debunked or addressed, without ever having read the book? A case of the ignorant grasping at straws.

It's a doctrinal commitment to line item #2.

Ishmael

 

[cjh]

<snip>

The consumption tax, on the other hand, can only be regarded as a payment for permission-to-live. It implies that a man will not be allowed to advance or even sustain his own life, unless he pays, off the top, a fee to the State for permission to do so. The consumption tax does not strike me, in its philosophical implications, as one whit more noble, or less presumptuous, than the income tax.

this is both succinct and powerful. it speaks volumes.

thanks for the quote.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Recidiva]

Again; it's fair to ask, "Is that what you would do to your employees?"

Damn straight people will do that to their employees and say their hands are tied, they can't do anything about it...it's the government...blah, blah...

And probably cut it more than they have to.

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

The consumption tax puts the taxation on the shoulders of the economy, not the workers.

T, your contention is the inverse of the one where people claim, the companies won't pass the savings on to the poor; they'll just screw them (as you propose workers will get screwed). Well the airlines pay a stiff gas tax. Congress fucked around (this is in the book) playing its usual games and allowed it to elapse (until revenue stopped coming in forcing them to act... ). Well the airlines decided to fuck the consumer and keep the profits which was fine and dandy until ONE airline decided to benefit the consumer...

 

[cjh]

I'm impressed too. His C&P abilities rival REDWAVE and BB.

pfft

you're fooling no one if you dismiss his analytical skills. he finds and synthesizes good authorities with the best of them.

ain't nuthin' wrong with supporting an argument with a credible authority.

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

Damn straight people will do that to their employees and say their hands are tied, they can't do anything about it...it's the government...blah, blah...

And probably cut it more than they have to.

You would quickly find yourslef with only Mexicans willing to do the job...

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

There is no one that has stated the IRS is going to 'go away' beyond no more intrusion into the individuals life. No more tax forms, no more withholding. If you have a tax, you have a tax collector, that's what they do. They just don't collect it from me anymore and for 99% of the population they will, for all intents and purposes, disappear.

Ishmael

All H.R. 25 does is repeal Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that relates to income taxes and self-employment taxes and Subtitle C that relates to payroll taxes and the withholding of income taxes. The only mention of the 16th Amendment in H.R. 25 is when it says: "Congress further finds that the 16th amendment to the United States Constitution should be repealed."

To repeal the 16th Amendment would require a constitutional amendment. Can Congress be relied on to pass a constitutional amendment that repeals the 16th amendment after a national sales tax has already been enacted? And even if Congress passed a constitutional amendment, it would still have to be approved by three-fourths of the states. Without the repeal of the 16th Amendment, what is to prevent an income tax from being imposed again after a national sales tax has been enacted?

Nothing.