IRS Scandals and Immigration Reform - ONE SOLUTION!

An interesting rebuttal from FairTax.org to FactCheck.org analysis... Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

Chica Chaser, I'm not sure whether you are a firm supporter of the FairTax, or simply want to toss it into the arena of discussion. But in any event, I'm glad that you are able to debate the topic without hurling constant charges of stupidity and ignorance! Since the champion of such practices, CuteOldGuy, abandoned this discussion last night in favor of other things (it's so much more fun to start four new threads instead!), maybe we can have a reasoned conversation on the issue. It does come up a lot, and people are curious about it -- especially since IRS credibility has sunk to even lower lows than anyone thought possible.

But there's one key thing that needs to be remembered. Perhaps lost amid all the insults he hurled, COG claimed that the FairTax is progressive, presumably because of the "prebate." But if he had ever taken so much as an introductory course in economics, he would be familiar with something called "marginal propensity to consume" (MPC). Additionally, he would realize that it tends to fall as you go further and further up the income distribution. And the anti-regressivity effect of the "prebate" approaches nil as a household's income rises to higher levels, since it represents a fixed amount. I don't see any way in hell you'd ever be able to sell such a regressive tax plan to non-affluent Americans, especially in this era of large and widening income disparity.

A couple of points about the FairTax rebuttal:

In the very first paragraph, FairTax alludes to "defenders of the income tax system who profit handsomely from the status quo." I am about the furthest thing imaginable from one of those. Rather, I am simply a realist who knows it isn't going anywhere, especially when alternatives are not being set forth in a credible fashion. And under the FairTax, my tax burden would shrink to a fraction of what it is now.

The rebuttal claims that the FairTax "entirely untaxes" the poor. That may be true of some households, since the prebate is intended to cover the taxes on bare necessities. But I doubt that goes far enough to cover expenditures incurred by many households of very modest means. Consumption beyond the presumed value of minimal needs would still be subject to a new 30% tax. So the net effect of all of this on the bottom couple of quintiles of the income distribution isn't clear, and in any event would vary from household to household.

Now consider this sentence from the FairTax.org rebuttal:

By this measure, the FairTax is the only tax proposal that actually increases the purchasing power of every income segment while delivering the greatest improvement to the poor, the second greatest improvement to those in the middle class, and the smallest – but still significant – relative improvement to those at upper-income levels.


Wow.

Remember, the promoters of the FairTax claim that their plan would be revenue-neutral relative to the current tax system, while leaving every income group better off and none worse off.

The clear insinuation is that there is a giant national free lunch ready to be enjoyed by everyone.

The prebate untaxes everyone, poor and rich alike, up to the poverty level. If they spend more than that then, yes they have to spend some of their own money on taxes. I don't see that as a bad thing.

The point is that people are in control of their spending, not the Government in control of what is left of your paycheck after taxes are taken out.

The other thing to keep in mind is that the cost of goods produced and sold will go down. They will go down because of the removal of embedded taxes paid by the companies producing the goods. Those companies don't have to necessarily pass those cost saving on downstream of course, but they will when their competitors do it and they start losing business because they are not overpriced in the marketplace. Free market economy at work.

And that 28% FairTax is the offset to keep things at a mostly even keel and keep it revenue-neutral. When you remove all the politics and power struggles and look at it objectively, it makes a lot of sense. And will very likely contribute a lot of benefits along the way.

I do like the idea of a national sales tax for a couple of reasons:

I like the idea of no forms, no worrying about having to pay taxes every year, no penalties, etc.. However, it would create an additional burden on businesses to collect, file paperwork, etc. to pass those taxes back to the goverment.

It would tax the underground economy. Hookers, drug dealers, pimps, and other criminals would not escape the tax. If they want to spend any of their criminal gains, they would pay tax when they purchase goods and services. Want a fancy boat? You pay tax on it. Want a mansion? You pay a tax on it. Want more cars? You pay national sales tax on each one you buy..
Point is, there is a a huge underground economy that does not pay taxes.


That is all I really wanted to say. I am not going to argue the minutiae here. I just like the idea better than the current tax system Originally Posted by Glenn Quagmire

I'm not posting to either flame or argue with you but what you bring up raises a couple of interesting points I would like to toss out there:

1. Many states exempt certain things such as food (actual FOOD, not toilet paper, etc. and beer/wine) and prescription medicine from state sales tax. Would a Federal Sales/VAT Tax do the same? Since I'm a wittle weenie wiberal, I'd say YESSSS!!!!

2. There was a giant whinefest on another thread about internet sales tax and the "undue burden" it puts on sellers who sell on the internet. Now, if there is going to be a universal Federal Sales Tax, these internet sellers as well as any other merchant will also have to collect and remit these taxes to the feds. Is this also a "burden" on the merchants and if so, how much extra are we willing to pay them. Since all computerized accounting packages costing over $100 (and probably less) include ways to collect sales tax and the embedded formulations to do so - IT AIN'T NO THANNGGG! But, there will be some bitch for bitchin's sake who will pick the nearest fence post and proceed to have a debate.

3. How much of the "underground economy" will see an increase, i.e. bootleg "product x, y or z" if it is profitable to do so to avoid sales tax? Will there be the need to increase enforcement expenses?

Of course, one could do an excise tax whereby every time a product moves (changes hands) there is a tax.

So where did the term FairTax come from? From an article I read by Scott Burns, the idea came about when a couple of businessmen, Leo Linbeck Jr. (Ceo Linbeck Corp., a projects manager and builder and former chairman and director of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas) and the late Jack Trotter, decided over lunch 2 decades ago, that the biggest problem in America was its tax system. They agreed and decided to do the research and development for a tax system that would work.
They selected a group of 8 economists, including Martin Feldstein (Prof of Econ at Harvard, Pres. emeritus of the National Bureau of Econ Resources, BA Summa Cum Laude Harvard '61), James Poterba at MIT (Summa Cum Laude Harvard, PHD Oxford), Laurence Kotlikoff (Prof of Econ Boston Univ.) and Dale Jorgenson (also Harvard).
"The result was a bold idea: Replace the current mess with a national sales tax. Tax consumption and only consumption. Don't tax investment, education or income. Eliminate the income tax, the employement tax and the corporate tax. Just tax consumption."
According to Linbeck, "Its very progressive, but on a discretionary basis. If you buy a Bentley and I buy a Ford, you'll have to pay about 20 times the taxes I pay. People that spend more money will pay more taxes."
To get the FairTax idea, now a piece of legislation, through the Ways and Means Committee, they would have to hire lobbyists, one for each party. They would have to support frequent get-togathersfor congressional staffers, and they would have to provide money to support other political projects. After 6 months, they decided to try the grass roots approach.
From Linbeck: "...what we have for government is a contemporary form of feudalism. We have an electer elite, their staff, lobbyists, the academics. Perhaps 100,000 people, well educated, well-intentioned, not bad people. But they believe they ought to decide. They gravitate toward complexity, not simplicity. This group decides how the rest of us will live. If we want something, we have to go to the king's court. We have to find someone (a lobbyist) who has the ear of the king. If you accept a simple idea- that complexity creates opportunities for manipulation- then you can immediately see that the largest single tool is our tax system."

Please consolidate this thread into all the other IRS hating threads that have been posted in the past week.

THE ISSUE IS THE SAME. Only the crying and lying have changed!

Chica Chaser, I'm not sure whether you are a firm supporter of the FairTax, or simply want to toss it into the arena of discussion. But in any event, I'm glad that you are able to debate the topic without hurling constant charges of stupidity and ignorance! Since the champion of such practices, CuteOldGuy, abandoned this discussion last night in favor of other things (it's so much more fun to start four new threads instead!), maybe we can have a reasoned conversation on the issue. It does come up a lot, and people are curious about it -- especially since IRS credibility has sunk to even lower lows than anyone thought possible.

But there's one key thing that needs to be remembered. Perhaps lost amid all the insults he hurled, COG claimed that the FairTax is progressive, presumably because of the "prebate." But if he had ever taken so much as an introductory course in economics, he would be familiar with something called "marginal propensity to consume" (MPC). Additionally, he would realize that it tends to fall as you go further and further up the income distribution. And the anti-regressivity effect of the "prebate" approaches nil as a household's income rises to higher levels, since it represents a fixed amount. I don't see any way in hell you'd ever be able to sell such a regressive tax plan to non-affluent Americans, especially in this era of large and widening income disparity.

A couple of points about the FairTax rebuttal:

In the very first paragraph, FairTax alludes to "defenders of the income tax system who profit handsomely from the status quo." I am about the furthest thing imaginable from one of those. Rather, I am simply a realist who knows it isn't going anywhere, especially when alternatives are not being set forth in a credible fashion. And under the FairTax, my tax burden would shrink to a fraction of what it is now.

The rebuttal claims that the FairTax "entirely untaxes" the poor. That may be true of some households, since the prebate is intended to cover the taxes on bare necessities. But I doubt that goes far enough to cover expenditures incurred by many households of very modest means. Consumption beyond the presumed value of minimal needs would still be subject to a new 30% tax. So the net effect of all of this on the bottom couple of quintiles of the income distribution isn't clear, and in any event would vary from household to household.

Now consider this sentence from the FairTax.org rebuttal:

By this measure, the FairTax is the only tax proposal that actually increases the purchasing power of every income segment while delivering the greatest improvement to the poor, the second greatest improvement to those in the middle class, and the smallest – but still significant – relative improvement to those at upper-income levels.


Wow.

Remember, the promoters of the FairTax claim that their plan would be revenue-neutral relative to the current tax system, while leaving every income group better off and none worse off.

The clear insinuation is that there is a giant national free lunch ready to be enjoyed by everyone. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Now, now, Cap'n MidBright. CC provided an excellent analysis of the FairTax, and you ignored it. Yes, CC was civil, but you still insist on your point, regardless of the facts.

And by the way, I taught university level economics.

Now, consider this. Every product and service you buy has within it certain costs that have to be recovered in the price, as well as produce a profit for the seller. Approximately 28% of that is tax and tax compliance costs. If a company was able to eliminate those costs, they could realize the same profit at a lower price. If the embedded rate of tax is 28%, the price level will remain the same as it was before the FairTax. Of course, this will not be uniform across the board, but the average price level will remain constant.

Since you are obviously an expert on economics, I won't go into the silly question of "What happens if a producer doesn't want to lower his price?"

Now, consider that while the price level will remain the same, the working person will realize an increase in spendable wages, since there will no longer be any deductions from their paycheck for federal income, social security and medicare taxes. More spendable income + static prices = an increase in demand. Increases in demand may result in some higher prices initially, but will spur hiring to make more product, thus providing pressure on prices to go back down. But then, more people working means more spendable income. The market will have a real chance at finding equilibrium without government interference.

Then consider that the 28% embedded income tax and compliance costs will no longer need to be covered by exported products. This means that our exports will cost other countries 28% less than they do now. Think about what that would do to the competitiveness of Boeing, GM, Ford and other companies engaged in export. Sales would likely increase dramatically, causing an increase in hiring in the US, as well as an upward pressure on wages.

Next, consider the tax climate in other countries. Many have sizable tax and compliance costs, and VAT's. What would happen if the US eliminated those costs, and companies could manufacture here, and export their items without having to cover those costs? Many companies would move their manufacturing base to the US, which again, results in higher employment and upward pressure on wages. Which means more spending in the US by consumers. Which means greater demand, higher employment and rising wages.

And what do you call it when an economy has that kind of surge?

BOOM TIME, BABY!!!

So what's not to like? The prebate? Yeah, I don't like that either, but it's not a deal killer. Most think it's bad because it benefits the rich. Duh. Everything benefits the rich. That's why they're rich. But every other taxpayer will be much better off, too. Even you admitted that you would be better off, but you oppose the plan, because some other group you don't like will be better off, too. Can you see why calling you stupid is not name calling, but stating a fact?

"This plan is good for me, but I oppose it because it might be as good, or better, for someone else." Seriously?

The time is now for this plan. Support the FairTax! www.fairtax.org

so go sit in the corner and hold your breath, we'll ring a bell or something when they abolish the IRS and replace it with a Fair Tax

Please consolidate this thread into all the other IRS hating threads that have been posted in the past week.

THE ISSUE IS THE SAME. Only the crying and lying have changed! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

I was going to do just that, but now that you want it done.....nah, I leave it alone.
I wouldn't want to be accused of over-moderating something. LOL!

EDIT: OK fine I merged them. Lets all do make an effort to concentrate more on keeping same topic discussions to one main thread.

1. Many states exempt certain things such as food (actual FOOD, not toilet paper, etc. and beer/wine) and prescription medicine from state sales tax. Would a Federal Sales/VAT Tax do the same? Since I'm a wittle weenie wiberal, I'd say YESSSS!!!! Originally Posted by Randy4Candy

No category of goods is exempted from the tax. The prebate simply reimburses everyone for the tax that they would pay on "neccessities"

Exempting items by category is neither fair nor simple. Respected economists have shown that the wealthy spend much more on unprepared food, clothing, housing, and medical care than do the poor. Exempting these goods, as many state sales taxes do, actually gives the wealthy a disproportionate benefit. Also, today these purchases are not exempted from federal taxation. The purchase of food, clothing, and medical services is made from after-income-tax and after-payroll-tax dollars, while their purchase price hides the cost of corporate taxes and private sector compliance costs.

Finally, exempting one product or service, but not another, opens the door to the army of lobbyists and special interest groups that plague and distort our taxation system today. Those who have the money will send lobbyists to Washington to obtain special tax breaks in their own self-interest. This process causes unfair and inefficient distortions in our economy and must be stopped.

Our current tax system is a nightmarish clusterfuck and should be considered a national embarrassment by any sentient individual. I'd be hard-pressed to name anyone I know who wouldn't support a plan that's fair, realistic, efficient, and at least revenue-neutral. But the FairTax is not it. If you already have your mind made up and are not interested in taking a reasoned look at the issue, please read no further. (Especially if all you have done so far is hurl insults while referring people to the FairTax website.) But if you are willing to make an attempt to engage in critical thinking, I will try to briefly explain just a few of the myriad things wrong with the arguments proffered by supporters of the plan.

But let me dispense with one bit of housekeeping straight away:

And by the way, I taught university level economics. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Please let that sink in for just a moment! COG is telling us that he taught university level economics, yet he doesn't have any understanding of marginal propensity to consume and its effects as a household's income rises through the distribution. If he did, it clearly would have been impossible for him to deny the FairTax's regressivity. This would be like a math prof not having a clue what the limit of a function is. It's the sort of stuff taught to first-year college students shortly after the beginning of the term.

Given this, I don't believe for a minute that COG ever taught economics at any level. If he did, this is embarrassing beyond words. Please make a mental note in case this obnoxious cretin ever again hectors anyone over what he claims to be ignorance of any topic concerning economics.

Now, consider this. Every product and service you buy has within it certain costs that have to be recovered in the price, as well as produce a profit for the seller. Approximately 28% of that is tax and tax compliance costs. If a company was able to eliminate those costs, they could realize the same profit at a lower price. If the embedded rate of tax is 28%, the price level will remain the same as it was before the FairTax. Of course, this will not be uniform across the board, but the average price level will remain constant. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

All this stuff about a 28% "embedded tax" is just patent nonsense. You apparently pulled that number from one of those FairTax books. Embedded taxes are primarily corporate income taxes and the employer's portion of the payroll tax. Note that the corporate income tax is levied on income, not sales, and gross sales (which the FairTax would levy) are, of course, many times corporate income. So supporters are comparing apples to...well, something, I'm sure! Further, note that a very large portion of what we consume is imported, so the "embedded taxes" that FairTax supporters suggest their tax would replace were actually paid in another country. There are fair points to be made about what we call "tax incidence" concerning the corporate income tax. But FairTax proponents don't do themselves any favors by getting carried away with disingenuous claims and wild exaggerations.

Another way of looking at this is to note that aggregate corporate tax collections in recent years have hovered around the 1-2% range. Do the arithmetic; this is really not difficult to understand.

Now think about it. If Boeing, GM, Ford, what have you, could sell American made products overseas at a price 25% less than they now charge, what would happen to their sales? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Claims that the FairTax would produce a result such as this are simply absurd. Read the previous paragraphs and the reason should be obvious to you. What planet are these people living on?

Another absurd claim is that the FairTax as proposed by its advocates is revenue-neutral. The current tax system tends over time to haul in about 18% of GDP. In order to replace that, the FairTax would have to collect about 22% of GDP before the "prebate," which would amount to about 4% of GDP, more or less. But the tax rate would be 30%, so it would have to be levied across an almost unimaginably large base. And since the rate is so high compared with state sales taxes, a very large number of small merchants would let cash take a detour around the cash register. When countries first started levying sales taxes greater than 10%, they found that non-compliance skyrocketed. That's why they went to the VAT structure.

But if you look at the whole of the VAT experience, you will see that FairTax revenue estimates are fantasies. This is a deal that just doesn't "pencil out."

So what's not to like? The prebate? Yeah, I don't like that either, but it's not a deal killer. Most think it's bad because it benefits the rich. Duh. Everything benefits the rich. That's why they're rich. But every other taxpayer will be much better off, too. Even you admitted that you would be better off, but you oppose the plan, because some other group you don't like will be better off, too. Can you see why calling you stupid is not name calling, but stating a fact?

"This plan is good for me, but I oppose it because it might be as good, or better, for someone else." Seriously? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

A perfect example of how you continually mix cocktails of ignorance and obnoxiousness. Do you really believe I deem this idea to be nonsense primarily because other people that I "don't like" would benefit from it, too? I want the nation to adopt a sound plan that allows as many as possible to prosper, you stupid buffoon.

And now the best for last, an excerpt I posted earlier from the FairTax website:

"By this measure, the FairTax is the only tax proposal that actually increases the purchasing power of every income segment while delivering the greatest improvement to the poor, the second greatest improvement to those in the middle class, and the smallest – but still significant – relative improvement to those at upper-income levels."

Got that?

The FairTax is "revenue-neutral" (according to its proponents), yet it leaves the poor, the middle class, and the wealthy all better off.

And you guys seriously believe you can reconcile all this?

I'm sorry CaptainMidnight, but you FUCKED UP AGAIN!!!!!

You have posted a thorough, fact based assessment of the "Fair Tax" and in doing so you are requiring an alleged "college peerfesser" (gritsboy - you can toss in MopBoy Q. Corneyhole for good measure if you like) to pour water on his flaming hair, rise up off the floor and stop yelling and waving his hands ALL WHILE ceasing any and all cut'n'paste activities long enough to think about what you have written and come up with something to counter it besides, "fuck you, you stupid fucking fuck - only I now what I'm talking about." Good luck with that (although you're correct).

I was going to do just that, but now that you want it done.....nah, I leave it alone.
I wouldn't want to be accused of over-moderating something. LOL!

EDIT: OK fine I merged them. Lets all do make an effort to concentrate more on keeping same topic discussions to one main thread. Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

Is that called lumping or packing the shit in a ball?

Our current tax system is a nightmarish clusterfuck and should be considered a national embarrassment by any sentient individual. I'd be hard-pressed to name anyone I know who wouldn't support a plan that's fair, realistic, efficient, and at least revenue-neutral. True. But the FairTax is not it. It would be if you would take the time to understand it. If you already have your mind made up and are not interested in taking a reasoned look at the issue, please read no further. You won't understand it any better after this. Listen to someone who knows what he is talking about. (Especially if all you have done so far is hurl insults while referring people to the FairTax website. Actually, there is a lot of factual information there, but you have to have a certain level of intellectual capability to grasp it.) But if you are willing to make an attempt to engage in critical thinking It would be nice if you did, I will try to briefly explain just a few of the myriad things wrong with the arguments proffered by supporters of the plan. Any facts to support your claims? Hmmm . . . Let's see.

But let me dispense with one bit of housekeeping straight away:



Please let that sink in for just a moment! COG is telling us that he taught university level economics, yet he doesn't have any understanding of marginal propensity to consume and its effects as a household's income rises through the distribution. If he did, it clearly would have been impossible for him to deny the FairTax's regressivity. All you have said is that the tax is regressive. We are supposed to believe it because you said it? Sorry, pal. Cite some numbers. This would be like a math prof not having a clue what the limit of a function is. It's the sort of stuff taught to first-year college students shortly after the beginning of the term. Because I ignore a stupid argument, I'm not qualified to teach? We'll talk when you get your GED.

Given this, I don't believe for a minute that COG ever taught economics at any level. If he did, this is embarrassing beyond words. Please make a mental note in case this obnoxious cretin ever again hectors anyone over what he claims to be ignorance of any topic concerning economics. Well, I did, and I was great at it. I doubt you would have passed my class. Just because you remember a term from grade school business, doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about. I do. You don't.


All this stuff about a 28% "embedded tax" is just patent nonsense. You apparently pulled that number from one of those FairTax books. Embedded taxes are primarily corporate income taxes and the employer's portion of the payroll tax. Don't forget compliance costs. Note that the corporate income tax is levied on income, not sales, and gross sales (which the FairTax would levy) are, of course, many times corporate income. Which means, what? The FairTax ELIMINATES the income tax. So supporters are comparing apples to...well, something, I'm sure! Let's see. 28% of the cost of an item is taken out. 28% is added back in. This is not that complicated. Further, note that a very large portion of what we consume is imported, so the "embedded taxes" that FairTax supporters suggest their tax would replace were actually paid in another country. Which is added incentive for companies to move their manufacturing here, like I said. You have a problem with that? There are fair points to be made about what we call "tax incidence" I'm assuming you mean "incidents" since you are SO smart, compared to me. [sarcasm] concerning the corporate income tax. But FairTax proponents don't do themselves any favors by getting carried away with disingenuous claims and wild exaggerations. How are they disingenuous? How are they exaggerations? You have said nothing.

Another way of looking at this is to note that aggregate corporate tax collections in recent years have hovered around the 1-2% range. Do the arithmetic; this is really not difficult to understand. Do the math for us. And show your work.

Claims that the FairTax would produce a result such as this are simply absurd. Why? Just because you say so? Read the previous paragraphs and the reason should be obvious to you. What planet are these people living on? Spell it out for us. C'mon, man! Put me in my place! What in the hell makes what you said "obvious"?

Another absurd claim is that the FairTax as proposed by its advocates is revenue-neutral. The current tax system tends over time to haul in about 18% of GDP. In order to replace that, the FairTax would have to collect about 22% of GDP before the "prebate," which would amount to about 4% of GDP, more or less. But the tax rate would be 30%, so it would have to be levied across an almost unimaginably large base. This is bullshit. Click here: http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=FAQs And since the rate is so high compared with state sales taxes, a very large number of small merchants would let cash take a detour around the cash register. Like there is no underground economy now. What planet do YOU live on? When countries first started levying sales taxes greater than 10%, they found that non-compliance skyrocketed. That's why they went to the VAT structure.

But if you look at the whole of the VAT experience, you will see that FairTax revenue estimates are fantasies. This is a deal that just doesn't "pencil out." Says who, you? What makes you an authority?

A perfect example of how you continually mix cocktails of ignorance and obnoxiousness. Do you really believe I deem this idea to be nonsense primarily because other people that I "don't like" would benefit from it, too? I want the nation to adopt a sound plan that allows as many as possible to prosper, you stupid buffoon. That's what YOU said.

And now the best for last, an excerpt I posted earlier from the FairTax website:

"By this measure, the FairTax is the only tax proposal that actually increases the purchasing power of every income segment while delivering the greatest improvement to the poor, the second greatest improvement to those in the middle class, and the smallest – but still significant – relative improvement to those at upper-income levels."

Got that?

The FairTax is "revenue-neutral" (according to its proponents), yet it leaves the poor, the middle class, and the wealthy all better off. Yes. Amazing, isn't it? But that is absolutely true. http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=FAQs

And you guys seriously believe you can reconcile all this? Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

You've offered nothing to support your hyperbole, Cap'nMidBright. Which some on here appreciate, since listening to empty BS that they support is much more comforting than actually doing the research. But that doesn't change a thing. You haven't supported a thing you have said.

To the rest of you who want to avoid being ignorant, please click here, and learn about the FairTax.

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=FAQs

Thank you for your attention.

CC, you're a prince among thieves.