Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Carry_Okie
You're naive if you think that the type of enforcement you'll get with a Fair Tax won't be far more intrusive than the existing system. The very assertion commonly made on this thread to that it captures everybody's expenses displays the level of comprehensive enforcement envisioned.

Why would the federal government care about anyone's expense patterns when people will have already complied by paying the tax at the point of sale?

Unfortunately, most of the evasion will be done by low-income people who now pay no income taxes. Paying nearly 50% on a transaction (as they would in California) is a LOT of money to them (the law of the diminishing marginal value of money being what it is). So this law will criminalize vast numbers of people who now face no such complications

Your statement might be accurate if it weren't for the fact the tax rate will be 23%, not 50% and that the prebate will reimburse people monthly for taxes paid on necessities up to the poverty level in order to lessen the burden on low income earners.

Worse, for you to make such a hand-wave assertion of "far less bartering," when I cited an existing example of bootleg cigarettes and alcohol, begs for an example. You offered none. I promise you, the majority of people in this country don't worry about 67,500 pages. They fill out a short form or an EZ.

People will be far less likely to bootleg any product considering their purchasing power will increase since federal income taxes will no longer be deducted from their paychecks or dividend checks. I promise you more people have become worried about the 67,500 plus pages as the Alternative Minimum Tax continues to lower the threshold for taxable income to include lower income earners who the ATM wasn't originally meant to target.

I was an NRST advocate long before there was a Fair Tax proposal. No more. Cut spending. That's the real problem.

So your alternative is to keep in place a tax code that has continues to be increasingly intrusive and oppressive, especially now with unconstitutional Obamacare adding 16,000 more IRS agents and requiring businesses to file 1090 forms for any transactions over $600, until spending is cut to some unspecified level? No tax code is designed to specifically cut spending. The Fair will reduce spending by eliminating the IRS and its $11 billion price tag.
122 posted on 01/09/2011 11:47:04 AM PST by Defend Liberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies ]


To: Defend Liberty
Why would the federal government care about anyone's expense patterns when people will have already complied by paying the tax at the point of sale?

Point of sale times the number of transactions equals the degree of intrusion. With the combined load of the Feds and the States adding half-again the purchase price, you can bet your bottom dollar that people will avoid paying it. Cash and barter transactions will become more common. In order to enforce their take, the Feds would have to engage in not only illegal searches and seizures, but massive sting operations to get their cut. If you think the IRS is intrusive now, just wait until your "FareTax" induces a police state with revenue collectors everywhere deeming what constitutes barter or not.

Your statement might be accurate if it weren't for the fact the tax rate will be 23%, not 50% and that the prebate will reimburse people monthly for taxes paid on necessities up to the poverty level in order to lessen the burden on low income earners.

Typical FAREtax duplicity. There isn't a single other sales tax anywhere that isn't calculated as a fraction of the base transaction. Not one. Yet your FAREtax advocates calculate its impact as the fraction of tax AFTER it is assessed, a duplicitous practice at best. The actual rate is 0.23/(1-0.23) = 0.30 or 30%, as I said. Your second failing is failure to read: I said "(as they would in California)," meaning that the total sales tax would consist of the FAREtax hit, PLUS California's existing sales tax of 8.5% of the base transaction, PLUS the amount California would need to ADD because the lack of a 1040 would make a State income tax untenable. Hence, California would need to bump its State 8.5% sales tax to make up for lost income tax revenue. Given that the average marginal State income tax rate in California is now 12.5%, I swagged that the sales tax rate would have to rise to nearly 20% to cover both the existing sales tax plus the rate needed to make up for the now defunct State income tax. Hence, 30% Federal NRST + 20% SRST = 50% total sales tax, which is what I said above. Even if it was 5% less, it's still too much to keep people from cheating.

If you think for one minute people won't do everything they can to avoid a 50% sales tax rate, I've got news for you. As I said, look at the market for bootleg cigarettes and booze.

People will be far less likely to bootleg any product considering their purchasing power will increase since federal income taxes will no longer be deducted from their paychecks or dividend checks.

You people are something else. Never in human history have people been so overjoyed to know what they're actually paying for government that they take their fattened paychecks and willingly go find a government agent to pay at a kid's lemonade stand. You seem to think that the entirety of retail is at electronic cash registers.

So, how are they doing collecting that existing Federal tax on marijuana?

So your alternative is to keep in place a tax code that...

So, not only are you dishonest, but putting words in my mouth as a straw-man will get you ignored from now on, that is, unless I feel like rubbing your sanctimonious nose in your BS numbers again. G_d's system was an income tax, but it was only a 10% flat tax. Nor am I totally opposed to tariffs. I think sales taxes are fine as long as one can keep the real rate, State and Federal included, below 15%. Beyond that and people will cheat, in droves, no matter how much cash they've got. Hence, the real problem is the scope and cost of government, not the tax system. My focus is cutting spending and regulation for those operations not specifically listed in the Constitution because that is where our focus must be.

127 posted on 01/13/2011 2:53:25 AM PST by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex and too important to manage by central planning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson