[Toshi]

ohio, i'm tellin' ya, you're just forgetting about the money tree. shaking it is part of the plan...

 

[LordOpie]

wait, do you expect business to really pass the whole savings on to their costumers???? and not take a considerable bite of the "cost savings" in their manufacturing process in the meanwhile??

specially when they know for a fact people on the street are making "more" money since they dont pay income taxes anymore???

Economic law of supply and demand is a fact. If it wasn't, then these same companies would simply raise prices to increase profits. Why don't they? Oh yeah, competition.

Sorry, but how do y'all not get this very simple FACT? I say that cuz the same question has been asked multiple times in this thread. Or perhaps people aren't reading the thread and just jumping in?

 

[ohio]

ohio, i'm tellin' ya, you're just forgetting about the money tree. shaking it is part of the plan...

Seems to be working for Gee-Dub, so that just goes to show you that all those high-and-mighty Ph.Ds in their ivory towers don't know squat when it comes to reel wurld economonomonics.

 

[noname]

Seems to be working for Gee-Dub, so that just goes to show you that all those high-and-mighty Ph.Ds in their ivory towers don't know squat when it comes to reel wurld economonomonics.

Considering that the Fair tax plan was concieved by Harvard economists, . . . . . . .. . . . .
But then you'd actually have to admit that someone who actually knows what they are talking about really thought this through. People far more educated and informed than any of us.

 

[noname]

ohio, i'm tellin' ya, you're just forgetting about the money tree. shaking it is part of the plan...

Do you think there is just a fixed amount of money in the world, and all it does is just pass from hand to hand, or do you believe that the economy is just always going to grow at a certain rate and adjusting tax policy won't make any difference?

 

[noname]

I thought one of the primary justification for the consumption tax was that it was a much simpler system that everyone could understand, and fewer people could manipulate? I would say that the voting public would have no problem understanding the concept (as you do), but have a very difficult time grasping the true ramifications of such a tax (as you are).

the system is simple, understanding how embedded taxes play a part in the pricing structure is harder for most people(like youirself for example) to understand. Also, the issue is very easy for people who don't understand it or have a vested interest in the current system to demigogue.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Economic law of supply and demand is a fact. If it wasn't, then these same companies would simply raise prices to increase profits. Why don't they? Oh yeah, competition.

Sorry, but how do y'all not get this very simple FACT? I say that cuz the same question has been asked multiple times in this thread. Or perhaps people aren't reading the thread and just jumping in?

you really believe the real world state of competition if perfect enough to trim all that fat?

 

[Toshi]

Considering that the Fair tax plan was concieved by Harvard economists, . . . . . . .. . . . .
But then you'd actually have to admit that someone who actually knows what they are talking about really thought this through. People far more educated and informed than any of us.

it was conceived by a harvard economist (note the singular):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax#Supporting_theories_of_effect

full disclosure: i just edited that section to read "chairman of the Economics Department at Harvard University from 1994-1997 and currently the Samuel W. Morris University Professor at Harvard University". it formerly implied he was currently the head of the dept, which is untrue: http://post.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/jorgenson/bio/bio.html

so one crank from harvard came up with part of this plan. does the harvard association automatically make him or the plan infallible?

 

[LordOpie]

you really believe the real world state of competition if perfect enough to trim all that fat?

All? Nah, but damn near all.

Look, it's simple... unless you can brand your product to differentiate it or the cost of entry into said product is extremely high or other monopolistic tendencies, then you're dealing with a product where price is a factor.

Do you really believe a Serotta is worth $7k? Why is a Trek 1000 priced the same as all the other bikes like it? Why does the gas station lower it's price when the one across the street lowers its price?

 

[ohio]

Economic law of supply and demand is a fact. If it wasn't, then these same companies would simply raise prices to increase profits. Why don't they? Oh yeah, competition.

Sorry, but how do y'all not get this very simple FACT? I say that cuz the same question has been asked multiple times in this thread. Or perhaps people aren't reading the thread and just jumping in?

I think everyone gets supply and demand, but it's not like corporate costs suddenly disappear if you remove their taxes. People then need to earn more to cover the consumption tax and you just move those costs to take-home pay, rather than tax payout. It makes everyone feel good because they think they're making more money, and corporations think they're paying less money, when the reality is that in the near term it's a zero sum, and in the broader sense you stifled any impetus for economic growth.

 

[ohio]

Do you think there is just a fixed amount of money in the world, and all it does is just pass from hand to hand, or do you believe that the economy is just always going to grow at a certain rate and adjusting tax policy won't make any difference?

You've stated or implied several times that there will be incredible new growth under your plan. Now explain the mechanism that will spur this economic growth you claim a consumption tax will cause.

 

[ohio]

Economic law of supply and demand is a fact. If it wasn't, then these same companies would simply raise prices to increase profits.

Opie, supply and demand is a nice simple rule that describes the basic market forces on a very high level. There are many other economic phenomena. Many companies DO simply raise prices to increase profits. The multi-billion-dollar financial market exists largely because there are inefficiencies in the market place resulting partially from irrational behavior, and partially from our inability to predict the future.

I also have no idea what this has to do with a consumption tax.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Would beer be taxed under this plan?

 

[noname]

Would beer be taxed under this plan?

 

[noname]

You're futzing with numbers again. Also, if you're going to give numbers, why not cite the source? And little things like the year, perhaps?

You don't understand the difference between discretionary spending and non? I should have made that clear, sorry about that.

Futzing with numbers? Those are the numbers from the '05 budget, sorry if they don't support your argument, I'll try harder next time.

 

[LordOpie]

People then need to earn more to cover the consumption tax and you just move those costs to take-home pay...

sounds like you're saying companies will have to pay their employees more?

Which isn't the case, they pay them the same, they simply don't take income taxes out.

 

[noname]

I think everyone gets supply and demand, but it's not like corporate costs suddenly disappear if you remove their taxes. People then need to earn more to cover the consumption tax and you just move those costs to take-home pay, rather than tax payout. It makes everyone feel good because they think they're making more money, and corporations think they're paying less money, when the reality is that in the near term it's a zero sum, and in the broader sense you stifled any impetus for economic growth.

Once again OH. You remove the tax burdens of all corporations along the production/supply chain. That in turn reduces the cost by roughly 22/23%, taking something that was $100 down to about $77 dollars, then you add in a consumption tax of about 32%, bring the cost of the product up to about $101 dollars, meanwhile, someone who makes say $1200 dollars a week, takes home about $850, now they will be taking home all of their paycheck while receiving a 1% increase on the cost of goods. The rebate they receive monthly to cover tax expendatures on nesseccities will more than offset that. If you can't see how that will result in much faster growth than the current system you are seriously dense, or maybe you continue to perpetuate this for sh#ts and giggles, either way. . . .. .

 

[LordOpie]

Opie, supply and demand is a nice simple rule that describes the basic market forces on a very high level. There are many other economic phenomena.

But we're not talking about MANY, we're talking ceterus paribus (all other things being equal)...

if you lower a companies cost to produce in anyway, they can lower the price they sell it for.

It has to do with consumption tax, because if you remove corporate taxes and those taxes are, say, 20%, then you've effectively reduced costs by 20%. If it's a generic good, then competition will force prices to be reduced by the same about of the now-non-existent tax.

 

[LordOpie]

Once again...

do you get the feeling people aren't listening?

Or perhaps they like shooting down ideas, instead of trying to improve them?

 

[Silver]

Futzing with numbers? Those are the numbers from the '05 budget, sorry if they don't support your argument, I'll try harder next time.

Except for the fact that nobody talks about the budget in terms of non discretionary spending (not even our retard president) unless they are trying to intentionally be misleading.

I'm done. Let me know when you harness the power of the sun on your desk at room temperature.

 

[noname]

Except for the fact that nobody talks about the budget in terms of non discretionary spending (not even our retard president) unless they are trying to intentionally be misleading.

I'm done. Let me know when you harness the power of the sun on your desk at room temperature.

quoting numbers directly out of the '05 budget, real misleading. . . . . Let me know when you harness the power of the sun, or do anything of interest. . . .. .

 

[ohio]

Once again OH. You remove the tax burdens of all corporations along the production/supply chain. That in turn reduces the cost by roughly 22/23%, taking something that was $100 down to about $77 dollars, then you add in a consumption tax of about 32%, bring the cost of the product up to about $101 dollars, meanwhile, someone who makes say $1200 dollars a week, takes home about $850, now they will be taking home all of their paycheck while receiving a 1% increase on the cost of goods. The rebate they receive monthly to cover tax expendatures on nesseccities will more than offset that. If you can't see how that will result in much faster growth than the current system you are seriously dense, or maybe you continue to perpetuate this for sh#ts and giggles, either way. . . .. .

And you just cut $132 billion in tax revenues (using 2004 as an example) from the federal budget. This would require incremental economic growth of about 10% year on year (that is, in addition to what we are currently experiencing), for consumption tax to make up the difference. I'll leave it to you to figure out how and why.

Good reference for these discussions:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=204

 

[ohio]

do you get the feeling people aren't listening?

Or perhaps they like shooting down ideas, instead of trying to improve them?

You want improved? The consumption tax would need to be ~45% for it to even be close to feasible.

So I improved the idea to the point where it's realistic. Do you still like the idea?

 

[DRB]

Economic law of supply and demand is a fact. If it wasn't, then these same companies would simply raise prices to increase profits. Why don't they? Oh yeah, competition.

It has to do with consumption tax, because if you remove corporate taxes and those taxes are, say, 20%, then you've effectively reduced costs by 20%. If it's a generic good, then competition will force prices to be reduced by the same about of the now-non-existent tax.

I was going to stay out of this but these statements are absolutely ludicrous. But at least you got part of it right with the use of the word CAN.

Companies ALWAYS look for ways to raise their profits. Its why they are in business.

I'll give you a perfect example of why this reduction in price because of the removal of an embedded tax is utter crap.

Let's say that a state lowers its gas tax a dime a gallon. The average reduction in gas price in your model would be a dime. Well the actual rule of thumb is that the price is going to only go back about half of the tax reduction. AND the rule of thumb is that the price will increase at a rate of about .01 a week until the pre tax cut price is back. That doesn't even take into account how easy it is for gas companies to hide this in seasonal fluctuations that everyone takes for granted. People hardly notice it happens.

You honestly think for one second that this wouldn't be true with this utopian fair tax crap. Its a license for a whole new profit stream for business.

And no where in H.R. 25 does it even begin to address local and state income, property and sales taxes that aren't going anywhere. When they do their little fancy embedded tax calculation, they include all taxes when they know full and well that's wrong. So their price reduction gets chopped even more.

All of this is very manipulated. They claim embedded taxes of 22% and oddly enough their rate of 23% is practically the same. So in everyone's mind its a wash. Well its a lie. Like I said their 22% embedded tax includes taxes that they will not be able to repeal or remove. Then take into account the 23% is calculated tax inclusive which equates to 30% in normal terms. So all of a sudden its not so balanced. Also 23% is just where it starts, it will move with changes in the the social secuirty rate and the hospital insurance rate (along with the general revenue rate that is stated at 14.9%). So anyone want to guess how long it stays at "23%"

Now let's talk about covering current Federal revenues, which this has to do because it claims to be revenue neutral. The bill says 23% and its revenue neutral. Well that claim is widely disputed. Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation, in scoring Linder's bill, figured a tax rate of 36% would be necessary to get the current levels of revenue. And even that is low to many, who say that they have woefully underestimated.

And lastly, the scariest part about this is that if you ask these Fair Tax zealots where the dangers lie in their plans, they see none. I've heard that directly from the Congressional sponsor of this plan. Linder says and I quote, "Its pretty much a perfect plan that addresses every problem with the current system." The risk to them is nonexistant. I asked him about the law of unintended consequences and he got a blank look on his face and asked how my wife was doing.

 

[noname]

Good reference for these discussions:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=204

all that shows is where the money curently comes from to make up the fed budget, . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
The fair tax plan alters the revenue source, as well as creating additional incentives for capital investment, increasing growth.

 

[noname]

I was going to stay out of this but these statements are absolutely ludicrous. But at least you got part of it right with the use of the word CAN.

Companies ALWAYS look for ways to raise their profits. Its why they are in business.

I'll give you a perfect example of why this reduction in price because of the removal of an embedded tax is utter crap.

Let's say that a state lowers its gas tax a dime a gallon. The average reduction in gas price in your model would be a dime. Well the actual rule of thumb is that the price is going to only go back about half of the tax reduction. AND the rule of thumb is that the price will increase at a rate of about .01 a week until the pre tax cut price is back. That doesn't even take into account how easy it is for gas companies to hide this in seasonal fluctuations that everyone takes for granted. People hardly notice it happens.

You honestly think for one second that this wouldn't be true with this utopian fair tax crap. Its a license for a whole new profit stream for business.

And no where in H.R. 25 does it even begin to address local and state income, property and sales taxes that aren't going anywhere. When they do their little fancy embedded tax calculation, they include all taxes when they know full and well that's wrong. So their price reduction gets chopped even more.

All of this is very manipulated. They claim embedded taxes of 22% and oddly enough their rate of 23% is practically the same. So in everyone's mind its a wash. Well its a lie. Like I said their 22% embedded tax includes taxes that they will not be able to repeal or remove. Then take into account the 23% is calculated tax inclusive which equates to 30% in normal terms. So all of a sudden its not so balanced. Also 23% is just where it starts, it will move with changes in the the social secuirty rate and the hospital insurance rate (along with the general revenue rate that is stated at 14.9%). So anyone want to guess how long it stays at "23%"

Now let's talk about covering current Federal revenues, which this has to do because it claims to be revenue neutral. The bill says 23% and its revenue neutral. Well that claim is widely disputed. Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation, in scoring Linder's bill, figured a tax rate of 36% would be necessary to get the current levels of revenue. And even that is low to many, who say that they have woefully underestimated.

And lastly, the scariest part about this is that if you ask these Fair Tax zealots where the dangers lie in their plans, they see none. I've heard that directly from the Congressional sponsor of this plan. Linder says and I quote, "Its pretty much a perfect plan that addresses every problem with the current system." The risk to them is nonexistant. I asked him about the law of unintended consequences and he got a blank look on his face and asked how my wife was doing.

First off, there are actually modern day examples of taxes being reduced and prices dropping immediately, it happened breifly with a fed tax on the aviation industry that congress fell asleep on and allowed it to twilight.
Secondly, you are getting your numbers confused, the current embedded tax is 22-23%, the fair tax would be just over thirty percent. As far as "how long will it stay that way?", how long has the current system rate been where it is? Like everything it takes cinstant vigilance to keep cogress out of our pockets and personal lifes.
As far as state and local taxes, again your not paying close attention are you? When I gave my example of a $100 commodity, I specifically didn't give state tax figures because they are unchanged, if the price of the commodity is the same at the counter (or very close) then the post state tax price would be the same.
As far as unintended consequences, I consider getting the fed out of my personal life a very positive side effect.
As far as perfect goes,
Don't let the great be the enemy of the good.
the fair tax is a far superoir system to the one currently established.
I guess in some peoples minds it's perfectly OK to live with a bizantine, oppressive megolithic tax structure because the next one to come along can't walk on water.

 

[noname]

Companies DO always look for ways to improve their profits, it's corporate desire for graeter market share that drives competition and price reductions; always trying to undercut the competition. I keep a very wary eye on my competitors in the area and always strive to offer better service for a lower price because that's what keeps my customers coming back.

 

[Silver]

I was going to stay out of this but these statements are absolutely ludicrous. But at least you got part of it right with the use of the word CAN.

Companies ALWAYS look for ways to raise their profits. Its why they are in business.

I'll give you a perfect example of why this reduction in price because of the removal of an embedded tax is utter crap.

Oil companies aren't a great example. Competition in the economic sense isn't perfect there. The same things holds for health care, agribusiness, utilities, banking, and insurance.

So, leaving out those industries (which have little to no effect on anyone's daily life) we can expect the magical hand of competition to in fact lower the price of staples.

(I'm not lying either. I would expect the price of staples to go down. You didn't think I meant staple goods, did you?)

 

[DRB]

First off, there are actually modern day examples of taxes being reduced and prices dropping immediately, it happened breifly with a fed tax on the aviation industry that congress fell asleep on and allowed it to twilight.
Secondly, you are getting your numbers confused, the current embedded tax is 22-23%, the fair tax would be just over thirty percent. As far as "how long will it stay that way?", how long has the current system rate been where it is? Like everything it takes cinstant vigilance to keep cogress out of our pockets and personal lifes.
As far as state and local taxes, again your not paying close attention are you? When I gave my example of a $100 commodity, I specifically didn't give state tax figures because they are unchanged, if the price of the commodity is the same at the counter (or very close) then the post state tax price would be the same.
As far as unintended consequences, I consider getting the fed out of my personal life a very positive side effect.
As far as perfect goes,
Don't let the great be the enemy of the good.
the fair tax is a far superoir system to the one currently established.
I guess in some peoples minds it's perfectly OK to live with a bizantine, oppressive megolithic tax structure because the next one to come along can't walk on water.

Oh they'll always drop and usually immediately but never as much as the tax cut and the changes are never permanent. Companies know that you'd pay for it at the pre-tax cut rate and they'll get back to that sooner than later.

As for getting the fed out of your daily life. With this plan they are more in your business than ever before. If you want to sell something you gotta register with the federal government. You have to have a bank account if you sell something. And don't forget your necessities rebate. This abolishes the IRS but simply replaces it with another organization with a different name. And don't think for a minute that organization won't grow to be the exact same size as it is today.

As for he changes will just occur with no congressional oversite. At least now congressmen have to stick their neck on the line to changes taxes up or down. With this it just happens and there is no accountability. It goes up 7% in one year and Congress gets an easy pass.

No you aren't paying attention, I'm not talking about state and local sales taxes. I'm talking about state and local embedded taxes. Taxes that your rate of 22% includes but aren't actually going to drop out of the equation eventhough you are selling it like they are. And you aren't taking home all your pay because there still is state income taxes in those states that charge it.

Which brings up another point? Do you have a money tree in your backyard? I don't. And neither does Fair Tax. One of the basics of this plan is that you get to take home your whole check. Well not really. Actually you get a salary reduction to the amount of your net pay and then get to take home all of that. That's according to Dale Jorgenson, the guy that actually came up with the whole idea.

Ohio asked if services were going to be taxed. Oh yes. The visit to the doctor will now get the "fair tax" on it. Hire the kid down the street to mow your lawn, he's got to be registered and collecting the tax to do so. Guess what buy a stamp, pay the tax. Sell something to the government you better collect the tax eventhough you'll be paying it right back.

If I'm getting eaten by an alligator, trading for a lion doesn't seem like all that great an idea.

 

[DRB]

Oil companies aren't a great example. Competition in the economic sense isn't perfect there. The same things holds for health care, agribusiness, utilities, banking, and insurance.

So, leaving out those industries (which have little to no effect on anyone's daily life) we can expect the magical hand of competition to in fact lower the price of staples.

(I'm not lying either. I would expect the price of staples to go down. You didn't think I meant staple goods, did you?)

I was about to respond and realized I turned off my sarcasm meter. Its back on and I laughed.

 

[noname]

Oh they'll always drop and usually immediately but never as much as the tax cut and the changes are never permanent. Companies know that you'd pay for it at the pre-tax cut rate and they'll get back to that sooner than later. Companies also know that if they sell for less than their competition, they can sweep the rug out from under them, hence the word "competition", but having a business and having managed several others means that I wouldn't know anything about that.

As for getting the fed out of your daily life. With this plan they are more in your business than ever before. If you want to sell something you gotta register with the federal government. The tax is for retail goods, as in new, if I buy your used bike, there is no tax You have to have a bank account if you sell something. And don't forget your necessities rebate. This abolishes the IRS but simply replaces it with another organization with a different name. And don't think for a minute that organization won't grow to be the exact same size as it is today.

As for the changes will just occur with no congressional oversite. At least now congressmen have to stick their neck on the line to changes taxes up or down. They will with this plan also, congress always has and always will ultimately hold the purse strings so to speak. With this it just happens and there is no accountability. It goes up 7% in one year and Congress gets an easy pass.

No you aren't paying attention, I'm not talking about state and local sales taxes. I'm talking about state and local embedded taxes. Taxes that your rate of 22% includes but aren't actually going to drop out of the equation eventhough you are selling it like they are. And you aren't taking home all your pay because there still is state income taxes in those states that charge it.

Which brings up another point? Do you have a money tree in your backyard? I don't. And neither does Fair Tax. One of the basics of this plan is that you get to take home your whole check. Well not really. Actually you get a salary reduction to the amount of your net pay and then get to take home all of that. That's according to Dale Jorgenson, the guy that actually came up with the whole idea.

Ohio asked if services were going to be taxed. Oh yes. The visit to the doctor will now get the "fair tax" on it. Hire the kid down the street to mow your lawn, he's got to be registered and collecting the tax to do so wrong, just like he doesn't now. Guess what buy a stamp, pay the tax. Sell something to the government you better collect the tax eventhough you'll be paying it right back.

If I'm getting eaten by an alligator, trading for a lion doesn't seem like all that great an idea.

 

[ohio]

Companies also know that if they sell for less than their competition, they can sweep the rug out from under them, hence the word "competition", but having a business and having managed several others means that I wouldn't know anything about that.

Down the street from are two gas stations across the street from each other. One consistently prices their gas at least 10 cents higher than the other. Guess which one gets more business? Competing on price is the guaranteed best way to ruin a business. If those were my businesses that you were managing and you started a price war with our competitors I would fire you the instant I found out. (Edit again) Compete on quality, delivery, service, exclusivity, brand, etc. (/edit) Never, EVER, compete on price unless you have a sustainable price advantage either through protected tech or a rock-solid trade secret. (edit - price wars are like land wars in asia or going in against a sicilian when death is on the line)

The tax is for retail goods, as in new, if I buy your used bike, there is no tax

You still haven't addressed how this disincents the purchase of new goods. That is an economy-slowing mechanism, not a growth mechanism.

wrong, just like he doesn't now

Except in your NWO, blackmarket services like the above cut the government out of the entire value chain of taxation, wheareas under the current system, they only miss out on the last step. How do you intend to make up the deficit?

 

[DRB]

Oh god you haven't even read the bill have you? You just got the bullet points from somewhere. That's really pathetic and its what's really scary about all of this.

But lets give you one more try:

You best hope you are right about the price decreases because if you aren't the whole f'ing thing is screwed.... My experience with tax breaks, credits and cuts are that business swallow them with NO long term benefit to the consumer. Like I said the industry I'm in its simple operating policy.

Also in many cases the final retailer is the least taxed of all the supply chain, which makes it necessary for the removal of the embedded tax to worm its way thru several layers to the consumer. Again wishful thinking.

HR25 Chapter 1, Section 1 b (2) To tax all consumption of goods and services in the United States once, without exception, but only once.

It is a retail tax on new goods and SERVICES. So Johnny down the street mowing your grass is liable to collect and forward the tax to the government. Dr. Feelgood giving you prostate exam is going to collect the tax. Little Annie next door is going to have to collect it for the girl scout cookies she sells you and the babysitting you pay her for when you go to watch the movies that'll you'll be paying 30% more in the first year.

Now the only once seems to exempt used items, but oddly enough through the rest of the bill no distinction is made. I wonder why that is. Guess that when revenues fall flat they'll reinterpret it and start nailing you on used goods as well.

Johnny, Dr. Feelgood and Little Annie all have to register with the Federal Government as sellers And if you don't think so check out HR25 Chapter 5 section 502 (a).

Did someone mention barter transactions? Oh you better get some tax for the cash value of the trade. HR25 Chapter 1 section 103 (f).

The rate of tax is annually adjusted. No input from anyone it just moves. So if one year the thing goes completely haywire (imagine the social security rate going nuts in one year) and there is no way to stop it. EXCEPT maybe change the law but why its revenue neutral now so I guess that's not a danger. Congress can just wash their hands of it until folks raise enough hell.

I wish there was a smiley with its head in the sand but alas there is not.

 

[noname]

Oh god you haven't even read the bill have you? You just got the bullet points from somewhere. That's really pathetic and its what's really scary about all of this.

But lets give you one more try:

You best hope you are right about the price decreases because if you aren't the whole f'ing thing is screwed.... My experience with tax breaks, credits and cuts are that business swallow them with NO long term benefit to the consumer. Like I said the industry I'm in its simple operating policy.

Also in many cases the final retailer is the least taxed of all the supply chain, which makes it necessary for the removal of the embedded tax to worm its way thru several layers to the consumer. Again wishful thinking.



It is a retail tax on new goods and SERVICES. So Johnny down the street mowing your grass is liable to collect and forward the tax to the government. Dr. Feelgood giving you prostate exam is going to collect the tax. Little Annie next door is going to have to collect it for the girl scout cookies she sells you and the babysitting you pay her for when you go to watch the movies that'll you'll be paying 30% more in the first year.

Now the only once seems to exempt used items, but oddly enough through the rest of the bill no distinction is made. I wonder why that is. Guess that when revenues fall flat they'll reinterpret it and start nailing you on used goods as well.

Johnny, Dr. Feelgood and Little Annie all have to register with the Federal Government as sellers And if you don't think so check out HR25 Chapter 5 section 502 (a).

Did someone mention barter transactions? Oh you better get some tax for the cash value of the trade. HR25 Chapter 1 section 103 (f).

The rate of tax is annually adjusted. No input from anyone it just moves. So if one year the thing goes completely haywire (imagine the social security rate going nuts in one year) and there is no way to stop it. EXCEPT maybe change the law but why its revenue neutral now so I guess that's not a danger. Congress can just wash their hands of it until folks raise enough hell.

I wish there was a smiley with its head in the sand but alas there is not.

barter transactions values as well as moneys made performing services apply now, or didn't you know that. It's called the income tax. Little Johnny mowing lawns is technically producing income. If you honestly think anyone is gonna try to tax a kid mowing lawns you're the one with your head in the sand.
If you're selling new goods or services you're likely already registered with the government and have a busines license. Which is how you would track it.

 

[LordOpie]

what's the big difference between collecting sales tax or submitting income tax for the people selling goods and services?

 

[DRB]

what's the big difference between collecting sales tax or submitting income tax for the people selling goods and services?

You've hit the nail right the hell on the head. If there is no difference why change? Or even better if you assume revenue neutrality, how is the "fair" tax anymore fair than the current system?

barter transactions values as well as moneys made performing services apply now, or didn't you know that. It's called the income tax. Little Johnny mowing lawns is technically producing income. If you honestly think anyone is gonna try to tax a kid mowing lawns you're the one with your head in the sand.
If you're selling new goods or services you're likely already registered with the government and have a business license. Which is how you would track it.

Barter transactions are not included as income now. And Johnny is technically liable for income tax on his mowing earnings except his annual income never meets the minimum. But with fair tax he isn't paying income tax he is collecting consumption tax from you and is required to give them to the government. Nor does he have to pay tax on the his mower, fuel or other supplies for his "business".

They aren't going to track it with existing business licenses, its a whole new administration that will handle it. Along with this registration comes the monthly report that you have to submit to said agency of all your transactions from the previous period of course along

 

[Westy]

This issue seems so fueled by a lack of realism on all sides. Here's my take...tell me how stupid I am.

A, Illegal/undocumented immigrants are already here. Lots of them. You've got 3 choices...ignore their presence, deport them all, or arrange some sort of amnesty/registration scheme (including a suitability screening and potential deportation of known criminals). #1's obviously not working anymore, #2 is waaaay too resource-intensive and economically detrimental. That leaves us with option #3.

B, There's a constant flood of people trying to jump the border. Even if you've got a registration scheme, people will continue to cross illegally unless you make it #1 physically impossible through militarization of the entire border or #2 undesirable to do so, and preferable to do it legally. #1 is way too resource intensive to consider.

So we're left with making it undesirable. That means that illegals will not have jobs to draw them here. The only answer to that is to make it economically undesirable for companies to hire them. This means tough enforcement and big fines for anyone hiring illegal aliens. When it's no longer cost-effective to risk the fines, it will be preferable to use registered guest workers. And it ashould be a lot more managable to inspect companies, especially if there's a good high-tech registration program. Such a program will still be a bear to manage, but I'll speculate that it'll be easier than trying to control the entire border. And the fines for hiring illegally will have to be very, very big, or include asset forfeiture, in order to prevent employers from running the risk.

Then again, this kind of program will require a lot of domestic surveillance...might be unpalatable for us. I mean, who's keeping tabs on the random rich person hiring a maid or two? Dunno...just speculating here. I just don't see any other way to deal with the issue. We can't control the border entirely, so we should probably focus on making fewer people want to jump it.

Talk to me, goose...

MD

Thread bump for one of the more reasonable approaches to the issue. For some reason I thought this was a whole thread of a reasonable discussion. Either I cannot find it or my memory is deluded.

 

[Pesqueeb]

So we're left with making it undesirable. That means that illegals will not have jobs to draw them here. The only answer to that is to make it economically undesirable for companies to hire them. This means tough enforcement and big fines for anyone hiring illegal aliens. When it's no longer cost-effective to risk the fines, it will be preferable to use registered guest workers. And it ashould be a lot more managable to inspect companies, especially if there's a good high-tech registration program. Such a program will still be a bear to manage, but I'll speculate that it'll be easier than trying to control the entire border. And the fines for hiring illegally will have to be very, very big, or include asset forfeiture, in order to prevent employers from running the risk.

I've been an advocate for this for a long time. As a child of the Central Valley and former resident of what would become Devin Nunes district, this is the first step. Immigrants are coming, like it or not. It is the story of this country FFS. Nobody makes that journey, that is so hard, so dangerous, leaving family and friends unless they are desperate. Can we please exercise some humanity when it comes to the people who are trying to come here? You want reasonable control and tracking? Don't make it so fucking hard for people to come here legally, and make it economically devastating for people who hire illegally when they get caught. Seriously. Any orange grower, dairy, or slaughter house operator caught systemically and knowingly, abusing desperate people in what is essentially slave labor should have their farms, slaughter houses, and/or orchards confiscated. Basic human decency requires that we treat people, as if they were people. I know that's a bit of a stretch for the average GOP'er.

 

[rockofullr]

Any orange grower, dairy, or slaughter house operator caught systemically and knowingly, abusing desperate people in what is essentially slave labor should have their farms, slaughter houses, and/or orchards confiscated.

How about just start with some stiff fines and actual enforcement.

 

[Jm_]

How about just start with some stiff fines and actual enforcement.

Hey, businesses are people too...