Posted on 02/09/2004 6:48:54 AM PST by ancient_geezer
Yes, you have to fill out a form. I believe the information requied is name, address, and SSN of each person in the household. Verification is an issue for the SS Administration. I don't recall the penalties off the top of my head -- why don't you read the bill? (As this will also correct you on several other points.)
The existence of the rebate is a big flaw in this plan.
I don't consider it a big flaw. Personally, I think it is unecessary from a practical standpoint -- these are taxes already built into the price of goods, so no one will be paying a higher burden than they currently do -- but I do accept it as a political necessity to get enough support to pass the bill.
Even here, the debate on what to include or exclude from taxation is always debated - politicians will manipulate the new tax code just like they do now.
There is no debate, only unfounded speculation by people who have not read the bill. All end-use goods and services are taxed. Period.
And businesses and renters will scream like stuck pigs when their effective rent goes up 25% per month. Quick, send more lobbyists and bribers to our rescue in Washington, DC! Oh, my, I can't wait to see how this fast shuffle with the tax code will play out!
Why would their effect rent go up at all? The landlord's costs will go down because he isn't paying income taxes on his profits (or shuffling money around unproductively to avoid income taxes) -- remember that the average price of goods and services is already 20-40% of the final price. The NRST substitutes one tax for another. If a landlord was dumb enough to try and just up the rent by 25%, he'd quickly find himself without tenants because his competitor would be charging 20% less and still making his profit.
There is nothing arbitrary about a flat tax. We set a rate for everyone to pay that give the government the money it needs to pay its bills.
LOL, how do you figure any tax rate is set? It's always arbitrary up to the point that a substantive proportion of the electorate screams about it being too high. That is what sets the rate of any tax.
The rule for any income tax is the larger the voting block that you can be collected into a voting block, the lower your tax rate. There are alot more poor people than rich people subject to paying income taxes. Think about it.
In a sales tax situation, the seller cannot distiguish one individual from another by income thus everyone, of necessity, is hit with the same rate at the retail register. Everyone gets to feel the burden equally which means the door squeeks sooner and louder resisting upward changes.
Purpose dosn't enter in to it. Reporting wages is still required:
H.R.25
Fair Tax Act of 2003 (Introduced in House)
`SEC. 903. WAGES TO BE REPORTED TO SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION.
`(a) IN GENERAL- Employers shall submit such information to the Social Security Administration as is required by the Social Security Administration to calculate Social Security benefits under title II of the Social Security Act, including wages paid, in a form prescribed by the Secretary. A copy of the employer submission to the Social Security Administration relating to each employee shall be provided to each employee by the employer.
What is there to stop everyone in the market for a new home to set up their own "business", buy the home as a business asset, thus completely avoiding federal taxes
You wouldn't be able to live in it and the state tax authority will be watching what happens in the "new" home situations built by contractors and all certified businesses. The NRST does require "businesses" to be certified enabling them to purchase without tax.
If you build it yourself, as an individual, not a "licensed" contractor, guess what you pay the tax on all the stuff (purchased at retail) that goes into building that home. The tax is paid no, problem. Tax once but only once is the rule.
Now if you like just dumping money into an "investement" keeping repaired until you sell it. That's fine. The tax will be collected on your sale to that future consumer.
That is correct. Wages (not total income) are still required to be reported because they are used to determine future Social Security benefits. If Social Security can be massivley reformed or eliminated (and entirely separate issue), then this requirement can go away.
The discussion, however, was on income being a predicate for the FCA (a/k/a rebate) -- it is not.
He did, but might not have been sufficiently clear connecting the dots in your reply. One of the problems with a flat tax is that it still exempts a large portion of the population from paying the tax. The higher the tax rate, the smaller the portion of the people paying the tax becomes and the larger the group that doesn't pay taxes. As this second group gets sufficiently large, they have enough voting power to place the "paying" segment of the population completely at their mercy.
Holy cow! Have you ever rented an apartment or house? Have you ever run a business? Do you know what a lease is?
300 million leases are not going to be renegotiated overnight because a new law goes into effect. Nor is there any legal requirement (or even any reason) for a landlord to suddenly change his rent structure or let people out of their contractual obligations.
If you rent or lease anything, you will be subject to the tax on the rent you currently pay while the rent itself will not change. Thus, you will suffer a 25% increase in the amount you must pay to your landlord.
Now tell me this isn't a mystery to you ...
So much for all those "compliance cost" savings, huh?
Yes, I do know what a lease is, do you? The lease is a contract that says that the renter pays a particular (and typically fixed monthly) rate for the use of a piece of property. As you pointed out, the NRST would not change the terms of the lease -- if I paid $1000 before, I would still pay $1000 -- it doesn't give the landlord rights to change the terms. With the NRST in place, 23% of that $1000 ($230) would be remitted to the government in taxes, leaving the landlord with $770 after taxes.
Assuming 30% federal taxes (which i think is what the Fairtax states),
23% of total payment (as the seller who remits the tax sees it.)
That's 29.87% added on sales price (as the purchaser sees it).
To be able to purchase tax free you would have to be a "certified" business to do so. When certified you come under the reporting and audit proceedures of the state tax authority who are very jeolous about collecting every penny due. You see the states get paid to act as a go between in the tax collection under the NRST. No unfunded mandates in this bill.
If you try to live in the house, you pay utilities, insurance, etc. guess what, the state tax authority will watching and auditing "certified" business to see that doesn't happen. States are very effective looking after their own financial interests.
The cost here is minimal, and since businesses are required to collect and report the tax, they are compensated for their overhead by a portion of the taxes they collect .
Employers shall submit such information to the Social Security Administration as is required by the Social Security Administration to calculate Social Security benefits
Don't want to receive SS benefits? I'm sure the government will be quite happy to keep the dollars you will be paying via the NRST.
However this has nothing to do with the amount you receive in the Family Consumption Allowence which is a fixed amount without any regard to wages or income no matter where it comes from.
Now if you want to privatise Social Security and get rid of it, there will be no requirement to calculate social security benefits. That is fine by me, and I all for it. Your complaint is about Social Security not payment of FCA.
In fact getting rid of Social Security will drop the NRST tax rate to 14.9% so lets go for it.
23%........... Effective total federal tax rate with respect to consumption expenditure
14.91% ..... rate if Social Security and Medicare were eliminated
14% .......... rate if Nat'l Endowment for the Arts were eliminated
11.9%........ rate if Dept. of Education were eliminated
10% .......... rate if welfare were eliminated
9.8%.......... rate if foreign aid were eliminated
etc.
So lets look at what the maximum it would take to fund those functions clearly authorized under Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, in current dollars:
http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2001/guide02.html#Spending
- $285 Billion --- Defense
- $ 49 Billion ---- Veterens Services
- $ 31 Billion ---- Administration of Justice
- $ 16 Billion ---- General Government
- $199 Billion ---- Interest on the Debt
=========================
$580 Billion ---- Total
Institute an across the board, Flat rate, single stage National Retail Sales Tax, which taxes all imports and domestic products with the same rate.
Replacing present all current federal tax law with a retail sales tax would be 23% on new goods and services paid and receipted at the retail register. No hidden tax, no exceptions, exemptions everyone participates.
Such a tax acts in a natural manner to encourage the elimination of excess government functions through visibility of burden among all constituencies of the electorate.
The total federal government budget would move from $2,000 billions towards something less than $580 billions calculated.
The across the board federal tax rate on new goods and services would decline towards less than 6.7%.
As tax rate on sales decreases the economic burden on retail items, the sales volumes and growth in the economy would be tremendous allowing even further reductions in tax rates below that less than 6.7% theoretic level.
That is what I perceive as the ultimate achievements possible under a National Retail Sales Tax structured in the manner of the revenue bill H.R.25. Simple common sense applied to the principal of TANSTAAFEL,( no free lunch, everyone participates in paying there way in proportion to the benefit the extract from their consumption.) encourages the natural change in attitudes required of the electorate as regards the burden of government largess in their lives.
- It is fairer to tax people on what they extract from the economy, as roughly measured by their consumption, than to tax them on what they produce for the economy, as roughly measured by their income
Hmmmmmm....... It's do able, with time and effort, once the blinders are removed from the electorate.
So what's your problem?
BWAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA! Absolutely wrong, unless your landlord is a blithering idiot.
A lease specifies the rent to be paid. Sales taxes are always added on top because they are subject to change beyond the control of the two contractual parties. You know - states have politicians too.
And some leases add property taxes in too and for the same reason.
So, watch out for those 50 new Gestapo-like organizations.
That's all they do now, so where are all those compliance cost savings we were told to expect in our business accounting?
That was point on last week's thread too.
No lease I've ever seen says the total amount you pay is subject to change based on changes to tax law (income, sales, or property). Try and understand this one simple point: the NRST is not imposed on the consumer. it is imposed on the receipts of the business.
So, watch out for those 50 new Gestapo-like organizations.
New? They already exist. They are the same 50 state tax authorities that businesses deal with everyday with simpler rules to boot.
As an individual I only deal with one myself. With the NRST in place no more federal IRS on top of my state.
You have got to be kidding me. In addition to reporting wage information, businesses also currently report benefits (all that stuff that goes into box 14 [I think] of the W-2) -- and that's just payroll reporting. They must also calculate and withold taxes from employees (at rates individualized to each employee) and remit that information and money to the government.
Once all of that is taken care of, then the businesses have to do their own income taxes. Additionally, the business spends money in non-productive methods to shelter itself from tax liabilty. (And here we're talking about the overhead costs of finding and setting up the tax shelters as well as the actual cost to the business or its shareholders in terms of money lost or opportunities for gain ignored because of tax reasons).
And I'm sure I'm still missing a lot. But to say that all businesses currently do is report wages is patently false.
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.