Posted on 08/03/2005 4:51:43 PM PDT by RobFromGa
Dear Always Right,
"That's higher than mine."
I'm trying to be nice. I'm counting all my costs of meeting payroll as being associated with compliance with the current system, even though many of those costs would remain under the proposed system. I'd still be obligated to report wages to the IRS so that they could calculate what goes where for FICA and Medicare. I'd still have to comply with the states' revenooers, and I'd still have to comply for the purposes of workers' compensation and unemployment insurance.
But, hey, I'm in a generous mood, so I'm lumping all those compliance costs in.
Actually, under the new system, as I'd be forced to document every one of my transactions as either being to a final end-user (taxable) or to a business (non-taxable), my own compliance costs would go up.
sitetest
Ya think Trixie pays ANY taxes now? ;-)
Sales prices will probably rise, but not so much as incomes do, because all the deadweight in the IRS will be sent packing. (And, for that matter, at Turbotax, H&R Block, etc. Tax court judges, collection agencies, tax attorneys will all have to find real jobs.)
She will later. When she buys douche, condoms, and in AR's case... Lysol.
They aren't all true. Bad information leads to bad conclusions.
I think by extra money they mean that your paycheck will be larger.
Don't waste your time worrying about it, the 16th needs to be repealed first and that'll never happen in a million years.
This isn't correct. This proposal is not a flat tax where you would pay X percent quarterly or annually. This proposal is a national sales tax. The more you buy, the more tax you pay. Therefore Rich people who buy more, and more expensive items will pay more tax.
I don't get why we don't just put duties or tariffs or whatever on imports. We import a lot of cheap shite. And wouldn't that basically be a consumption tax paid by foreigners? Works for me! Why not cut into THEIR bottom line for a change? Why invent a new scheme?
Its like this... how do you get a Heinz Kerry with a house in the Hamptons and only ends up paying $1500 a year in income taxes (or whatever the number is)...?
There is a huge portion of the economy that is NOT taxed because its not based around people's actual lifestyles. A lot of people simply set aside a few million (post tax) to live on aka "their play money" in the local bank...yet they invest such so they are only getting an occassional capital gains tax here or there...and they pay tax only on interest earned or whatnot...
So in reality the guy has $100 million bucks and lives a million dollar a year lifestyle, yet he only paid taxes on about $75,000...worth of "income" as its defined by the IRS and probably lots of local property taxes too... (thats the way it is now)...
Its not the illegal underground economy I am talking about... its the above ground economy thats perfectly legal but only accessable to the rich.
They are only pro-tax when they can make corporations and rich people pay them.
Now, that being said, one of the things that REALLY interests me is that with no Corporate tax, there would no longer be much of an incentive for U.S. businesses to go offshore. Actually, we would probably see an influx of foreign businesses coming here to produce their goods and ship them home for sales.
Under the FairTax, the price paid for goods will not rise because getting rid of all the taxes built into goods will cause the prices to drop, then the FairTax will add onto the new lower price, resulting in the same price paid by consumers
If I assume that the cost of any item is made up of 70% payroll, 20% corporate profit and 10% imports. I assume the cost of any goods have the same distribution for the suppliers. If the embedded tax on payroll is 7.65% (SS + Medicare, ignoring the drop of SS after $90k and that most benefits are tax fee), the embedded tax on profits is 30%, and the embedded tax on imports is 0%, then the total embedded tax is about 11.4%. Adding other minor taxes and compliance costs still don't boost this up to 23%.
If someone has better numbers I would love to see them.
Which is why a "fairtax" type of system will never happen. Not unless there are all kinds of loopholes and exceptions to keep all those people employed.
Think of it this way... if you are now paying $100 for a foreign built television set, and we impose a Tariff to the manufacturer of 10%, what do you think happens to the cost of that television?
Answer: New price of television will be $110 (television + tariff). The foreign country doesn't end up paying the tax, the consumer does.
This is why we have such a large trade imbalance with China. We do not charge tariffs on goods coming in, but they do. Therefore their goods are cheaper here, while their consumers have to pay "extra" for the privilege of buying U.S. goods.
Because it won't cut into their bottom line, it will cut into yours' when you go to the store and buy all that more expensive shite.
Boortz goes on and on about how the poor people will pay less under this plan as if this is a good thing. The Dems wil be against it because they will no longer be able to buy votes, not because of any flaw with the plan fiscally.
Why did it take me 5X as many words to say the same thing?!!? ;-)
Agreed. But this is also the part of Boortz' plan I don't understand. Currently "poor" people pay very little tax, and with the gadgets in the current code, they can actually get money "back" that they never paid into the system.
Some of that would be offset because they won't be paying Socialist Security Tax or Medi-Scare anymore.
It gives 2001 numbers for the income tax and fair tax bases to derive the rate. It includes the rebate.
I'm sure a_g can give a more recent and better link...
Because I didn't feel much like typing. Getting lazy tonight...
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.