Posted on 09/20/2006 10:32:34 AM PDT by tpaine
And they do it with such erudition: "clowns".
"... the president's hand picked tax panelists are all a bunch of baffoons ..."
Well, you made the observation, not me, but one certainly can't argue with your appellation in view of the mess they made of their final report repleta with errors and their misstatement of what they pretended the FairTax might be.
The Panel didn't even begin to live up to their Interim Report in which they stated how bad the income tax system might be in no uncertain terms ... or did you read that???
Bermuda has no IRS. No income taxes. The taxes are all excise taxes, gas is $7.00, and to bring in a car, will cost if I heard correctly 100% the price of the car. Could be wrong. Tourism is #3 for bermuda. Banking is #1.
I doubt that the large retailers who handle something like 86% of retail sales will get involved in that to destroy their business.That's from one side of your mouth but from the other side you talk about this "broad tax base"...(but then you think "tax base" means tax payer not what is taxed).
The funny thing is, even in the Texas comptroller's testimony he claims that Texas retail tax filers would increase from 600,000 to 1.5 million in Texas alone under the Fairtax...
Your words from either side of your mouth don't hold water, never did.
That is because services are not currently taxed in Texas but would be under the Fairtax and as a result the tax base is FAR broader than it currently is. If Texas conformed it's sales tax base the federal sales tax base after the Fairtax became law, as they would be entirely stupid to not do, they could get rid of ALL other state taxes, including property taxes, and lower the current sales tax rate from the current 6.5% to about 4% and still raise the same amount of revenue.
they could get rid of ALL other state taxes,Yea "could" being the operative word. Then they could reintroduce all those other state taxes and you'd have an even broader tax base you seem to love so much.
"... they could reintroduce all those other state taxes ..."And they could also not ... especially when voters wake up to what the FairTax shows them their tax burden to really be.
The question is, does the retailer have the option of not signing up to be a tax collector for the federal government and still maintain his legal right to operate his business? The point is the freedom FairTaxers promise, and the voluntary nature of their tax.
Anticipating that you will assert that he already collects taxes for the federal government when he forwards withholding for his employees - most likely he got into business with the full understanding that that condition was in place. The FairTax changes the rules and places a new burden on the retailer that wasn't initially agreed to. Further, he must agree to subject himself to increased scrutiny if he wishes to stay in business.
Employee theft is quite a different thing from the retailer stealing the government's tax money which he has agreed in writing to collect and forward and be paid for so doing.
Sure its a different thing, but how does the government PROVE what happened?
He has agreed, as a Libertarian would put it, at the point of a gun (IMHO, that's just a bit overstated).
Weren't you the poster recently arguing about how dishonest everyone was and how many would "evade" the FairTax (without specifying what "evade" meant or how they might do that or how common this would be)???
You misrepresent what I said, yet again. Isn't that indicative of a basically dishonest person?
Ways in which the FairTax might be evaded have been suggested. I am sure that if we were to have a brainstorming session on the subject, hundreds of ways would be identified in a very short time.
Again you dissemble but wish us to beleive you fairly represent the tax you support. How logical is that?
BTW, you still haven't answered my question: If the FairTax were to pass, would you buy your plasma TV before it takes effect, or wait so you could pay the added FairTax?
"Anticipating that you will assert that he already collects taxes for the federal government when he forwards withholding for his employees - most likely he got into business with the full understanding that that condition was in place. The FairTax changes the rules and places a new burden on the retailer that wasn't initially agreed to. Further, he must agree to subject himself to increased scrutiny if he wishes to stay in business. "
It doesn't matter that he "got into business with any sort of full understanding" about income tax withholding or not since he had no choice ... he's still required to perform the function for the government of collecting and forwarding the taxes and he's not paid to do so. In addition, all businesses have to perform this function even a one man proprietorship. There is no option and he isn't reimbursed. In fact, anyone starting a new business is stuck with the same requirement - and the payment for the privilege of doing the tax collection.
In addition the FairTax may "change the rules" but hardly places a "new burden" on the retailer but in fact has very minimal reporting requirements - a two line report - for which the business is paid. And even then, it is only those businesses selling at retail that collect and forward the tax. Many, many other businesses are completely freed of any obligation to collect or report any sort of taxation since for many businesses there is none under the FairTax. The few who must do so under the law are well paid to do so and the "burden" is far less than it is at present - which applies presently to ALL businesses ... and it's an unfunded mandate as well - they aren't paid under the present system.
Your "point" makes little sense.
"The question is, does the retailer have the option of not signing up to be a tax collector for the federal government and still maintain his legal right to operate his business? The point is the freedom FairTaxers promise, and the voluntary nature of their tax. "
That's a foolish question since all you are really asking is "... does the retailer have the right to break the law ...?". I've suggested time and again that you read the bill, yet you do not apparently preferring ignorance.
If a retailer wishes to not collect and forward taxes, he can certainly do so PROVIDED that he arrange his business affairs to do so. Since you've not read the bill you have no idea what that means - so I'll tell you. It means that he must sell at retail to other than end consumers so that no tax is due. IOW he must rearrange his business to sell to other businesses etc. Now before you go off whining how "that ain't fair", let me stop you.
It certainly is fair, provides him the choice, and keeps him solidly within the law. It is an alternative of choice and it is his choice should he feel so strongly as you will pretend he does in your little hypothetical game. The alternative is to keep doing business as he is (assuming he sells now to end consumers) and follow the law - just as he has done at present under the income tax - IOW to collect the tax and be paid to do so (rather than bearing the expense of doing so). Why would he not make that choice? Certainly most rational merchants I know would so choose - and make more money in the bargain.
Are we now going into this little pretend game of yours claiming you were not saying there would be widespread evasion due to the FairTax??? I beg to differ. You clearly were saying that on more than one occasion. I think that now trying to shirk the responsibility of what you said is what many would consider to be "... indicative of a basically dishonest person ...", but I make no such charge. Instead I point out that you did make that claim and make it more than once. Just to be clear, do you now wish to claim you never took such a position???
Not that is is any of your business, but I haven't the slightest intention of buying a Plasma TV for any reason. I have no need or interest in one so your posed question is still hanging there as the nonsense it is.
In addition the FairTax may "change the rules" but hardly places a "new burden" on the retailer but in fact has very minimal reporting requirements - a two line report - for which the business is paid.
And increased scrutiny. According to you the IRS is the camels nose under the tent, intruding into the lives of American taxpayers to a degree that is oppressive; then you assert that the camel will increase his intrusion into the affairs of retail business forced to collect taxes for the federal government, but it ain't no big deal. I guess that means government intrusion is OK as long as it ain't YOU.
IOW he must rearrange his business to sell to other businesses etc. Now before you go off whining how "that ain't fair", let me stop you.
That'll work well for the mom and pop Seven-Eleven.
It certainly is fair, provides him the choice, and keeps him solidly within the law.
Its the same choice you have now to keep your income below taxable levels.
Certainly most rational merchants I know would so choose - and make more money in the bargain.
So why is the retailers association against the FairTax?
Are we now going into this little pretend game of yours claiming you were not saying there would be widespread evasion due to the FairTax???
To claim there will be a significant degree of evasion under the FairTax is not the same thing as your assertion that I stated "how dishonest everyone was". Talk about word games!
I think that now trying to shirk the responsibility of what you said is what many would consider to be "... indicative of a basically dishonest person ...", but I make no such charge.
Take responsibility for your own words, including the words make up and attribute to others. Model that behavior for us.
Not that is is any of your business, but I haven't the slightest intention of buying a Plasma TV for any reason.
OK, so would you be inclined to make any significant purchase (if you were inclined to make a significant purchase) before the FairTax went into effect, or wait and pay the added tax?
This country was founded because of taxation without representation; I'm not so sure that taxation with representation is any better. - unknown
Nobody likes taxes. - me
"Talk about word games! "Indeed!!! - let's!!!
"And increased scrutiny. According to you the IRS is the camels nose under the tent, intruding into the lives of American taxpayers to a degree that is oppressive; then you assert that the camel will increase his intrusion into the affairs of retail business forced to collect taxes for the federal government, but it ain't no big deal. I guess that means government intrusion is OK as long as it ain't YOU."
It seems to escape your notice, but those are YOUR words, not mine. You're merely attributing to me something you perhaps wish I'd said - and didn't. In fact, there will be DECREASED "scrutiny" for most businesses compared to the situation under the present system. And you overlook the fact they'll be paid for their efforts whereas at present they must bear the costs of the entire government tax-collection exercise as it relates to their business.
Additionally, the two line report involved for those collecting taxes under the FairTax represents no "camel's nose" but a reporting of figures they would have in any event. Even should the business be audited by the state sales tax authority, the "scrutiny" is most likely less than it would be under the income tax when extensive records and documentation must be produced upon demand not only of sales and purchases, but of depreciation schedules, income carry forward/carryback rules and amounts, etc. etc. almost endlessly. A sales tax audit by its very nature is much simpler for the auditee whereas an income tax audit can be both wide-ranging and very much like a proctologist's exam - and frequently less pleasant.
So your "increased scrutiny" comment is shown to be invalid along with the other implications in that same paragraph. Nor have I anywhere said that government intrusion (which is actually lessened by the FairTax, not increased) is "OK". Please show a post of mine where I have said that.
As for "mom and pop" 7-Elevens (you're apparently in CA), there are probably very few since many if not most are owned and run by investment businesses and financial groups. But you still haven't answered the question posed as to why the merchant would not elect to follow the law, comply with the FairTax and be paid for doing so. The smaller the merchant the more likely he would be to do so to earn the extra payment under the FairTax. The other option as I pointed out is to alter their business plan to serve a tax free base. That's why businessmen earn the big bucks, to make these "tough" choices and to alter their operations to adapt to changing business circumstances ... and taxes (and in this case it's not even taxes paid by the firm but those collected from the actual taxpayers that are involved along with the reporting thereof) are, indeed, a business circumstance - the reporting and forwarding of them; not the paying of them.
"Its the same choice you have now to keep your income below taxable levels."
No, it's not the "same choice" at all. Under the income tax for most normal businesses the only two "options" are to reduce your income or break the tax laws. Altering the nature of your business with respect to who your customers might be offers no tax benefit as it would under the FairTax in switching your customer base to be non-taxed sales. Under the FairTax you could remove the business from collecting the taxes by making that change (thereby reducing the business income by the amount of the fee for collection of tax).
Keep in mind, too, that what we're discussing here is the collection and forwarding of the FairTaxes and not the paying thereof - which is done in any event by the taxpayer - the end consumer. Your desire to pretend that a seller would frantically try to avoid collecting and forwarding the FairTax makes little business sense. For most merchants today sales tax audits are straightforward affairs and, barring some law-defying stunt on the part of the merchant, he'd be far better off than under an income tax audit since under the FairTax there is the presumption of innocence on he part of the auditee whereas with the income tax he is guilty until he can prove otherwise to the satisfaction of some IRS person (or frequently persons).
"why is the retailers association against the FairTax?"
Perhaps you should ask them ... and they'll merely quote to you from their hitpiece "study" (done not by recognized economists but by a "consulting" firm). They have no other option except to admit the truth which I believe is that the NRF (National Retail Federation) - which is the lobbing group in DC for retailers - certainly knows that once the Fairtax passes their entire lobbying effort (pleasant offices and facilities, sizable staff, "congenial" lunches and meetings with congresspersons off-the-record, etc.) will be gone!!! They'll be out of business. To believe that the run of the mill retailer agrees with the view the NRF study puts out means that you (of course) haven't done much looking into the matter except for the superficial fact that YOU THINK the lobbyists commissioned study represents the belief of all merchants. Here is a refutation of the NRF study. The "study" is sometimes called the "Price Waterhouse" or the "Nathan Associates" study. If I recall it was first the Nathan name and during the course of development, it was absorbed into Price Waterhouse. Nonetheless, it is the same "study".
"Are we now going into this little pretend game of yours claiming you were not saying there would be widespread evasion due to the FairTax??? "
Yes, indeed - it seems that exactly what's going on when you try to say that what you have done is to "... claim there will be a significant degree of evasion under the FairTax ...". It seems there is little, if any, difference in those two descriptions - one from me and one from you. Talk about word games!
"OK, so would you be inclined to make any significant purchase (if you were inclined to make a significant purchase) before the FairTax went into effect, or wait and pay the added tax?"
I'd already told you this was none of your business so lest you didn't understand that let me say it again - it's none of your business!! In addition, it has nothing to do with the FairTax discussion and is merely a "have you stopped beating your wife" sort of question.
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.