the fair tax would get rid of the IRS. the fair tax would boost savings. friends, we need a fair Tax

[RealDave]

In other words, an IRS, which in case you were not aware of it, is part of the US Treasury.

So the fuck what?

I never said the IRS could be abolished but it could be greatly reduced in size and cost

Don't ignore the good in favor of the perfect

So, in your subject line for this thread, you say, "The fair Tax would get rid of the IRS."

Are you familiar with the concept of 'deconstructing an argument'?

One picks out the salient points of an argument and then tries to prove or disprove the statement relating to that argument.

So, I always start with the obvious points and go from there.

We now see that one of the main highlights, as described by you, is that the IRS would be eliminated is factually incorrect.

I wonder what else could be proven or disproven?

If you're going to tell me what I said use the quote function. And I didn't start the thread.

You need to learn to read

You're right. You are NOT the OP. I wasn't really paying attention to who I was replying to, but to what was being said. I apologize for that. So, adjust what I said appropriately, that one of the basis for the discussion is that the IRS would be eliminated. In deconstructing the argument, we see that the statement does not hold up.

What else in the argument can or cannot be proven?

It doesn't matter if the IRS can be completely abolished. It could be greatly reduced in size and cost.

Why isn't that acceptable?

I have no problem with a national sales tax in lieu of an income tax as I think it would generate more revenue and be less costly to implement.

Because you keep saying it will end the IRS which is a lie.

There will need to be some sort of relief for the poor. There will still be non profits.

 

[Blues Man]

So the fuck what?

I never said the IRS could be abolished but it could be greatly reduced in size and cost

Don't ignore the good in favor of the perfect

So, in your subject line for this thread, you say, "The fair Tax would get rid of the IRS."

Are you familiar with the concept of 'deconstructing an argument'?

One picks out the salient points of an argument and then tries to prove or disprove the statement relating to that argument.

So, I always start with the obvious points and go from there.

We now see that one of the main highlights, as described by you, is that the IRS would be eliminated is factually incorrect.

I wonder what else could be proven or disproven?

If you're going to tell me what I said use the quote function. And I didn't start the thread.

You need to learn to read

You're right. You are NOT the OP. I wasn't really paying attention to who I was replying to, but to what was being said. I apologize for that. So, adjust what I said appropriately, that one of the basis for the discussion is that the IRS would be eliminated. In deconstructing the argument, we see that the statement does not hold up.

What else in the argument can or cannot be proven?

It doesn't matter if the IRS can be completely abolished. It could be greatly reduced in size and cost.

Why isn't that acceptable?

I have no problem with a national sales tax in lieu of an income tax as I think it would generate more revenue and be less costly to implement.

I never said it was unacceptable.

I am trying to ascertain what parts of the argument have any validity, and from there, determine the value of the concept of a 'Fair Tax'.

I will give you only this much.

Simply calling it a fair tax does not make it a fair tax, just as saying that a group of people who are against Fascists (antifa) are actually against fascism. This is an example and being introduced into the discussion. It is an example of how a title does not necessarily denote the truth about the object.

Well it is fair in the sense that everyone is treated exactly the same under the law. There are no special carve outs, no targeted deductions etc

 

[Blues Man]

So the fuck what?

I never said the IRS could be abolished but it could be greatly reduced in size and cost

Don't ignore the good in favor of the perfect

So, in your subject line for this thread, you say, "The fair Tax would get rid of the IRS."

Are you familiar with the concept of 'deconstructing an argument'?

One picks out the salient points of an argument and then tries to prove or disprove the statement relating to that argument.

So, I always start with the obvious points and go from there.

We now see that one of the main highlights, as described by you, is that the IRS would be eliminated is factually incorrect.

I wonder what else could be proven or disproven?

If you're going to tell me what I said use the quote function. And I didn't start the thread.

You need to learn to read

You're right. You are NOT the OP. I wasn't really paying attention to who I was replying to, but to what was being said. I apologize for that. So, adjust what I said appropriately, that one of the basis for the discussion is that the IRS would be eliminated. In deconstructing the argument, we see that the statement does not hold up.

What else in the argument can or cannot be proven?

It doesn't matter if the IRS can be completely abolished. It could be greatly reduced in size and cost.

Why isn't that acceptable?

I have no problem with a national sales tax in lieu of an income tax as I think it would generate more revenue and be less costly to implement.

Because you keep saying it will end the IRS which is a lie.

There will need to be some sort of relief for the poor. There will still be non profits.

OK where did I say that?

If you are going to tell me what I said use the quote function.

The very first time I ever even mentioned the IRS in this thread I said and I quote

It might no eliminate it but it will greatly reduce the size of it since only retailers will have to be audited to prove they collected and paid the tax.

And I even left in the typo for honesty's sake

 

[Blues Man]

Nobody has proposed a fair tax where the poor and working class do not end up paying more and the rich do not pay less

That's because the tax system we have now isn't fair as different people get different treatment

The Poor & Middle Class pay tax on 100% of their money & wealthy people pay far less.

You're the one who wants to force people to pay Social Security.

SS taxation was set up as a retirement program with a maximum payout.

I guess you want to make it voluntary.

What will you do with people that failed in that regard & are 70 year old & do not have enough money?

You are complaining about a tax you want to force working people to pay and it by no means ensures a maximum payout.

And who's fault is it if a person doesn't save his money? Not mine

 

[CWayne]

So, in your subject line for this thread, you say, "The fair Tax would get rid of the IRS."

Are you familiar with the concept of 'deconstructing an argument'?

One picks out the salient points of an argument and then tries to prove or disprove the statement relating to that argument.

So, I always start with the obvious points and go from there.

We now see that one of the main highlights, as described by you, is that the IRS would be eliminated is factually incorrect.

I wonder what else could be proven or disproven?

If you're going to tell me what I said use the quote function. And I didn't start the thread.

You need to learn to read

You're right. You are NOT the OP. I wasn't really paying attention to who I was replying to, but to what was being said. I apologize for that. So, adjust what I said appropriately, that one of the basis for the discussion is that the IRS would be eliminated. In deconstructing the argument, we see that the statement does not hold up.

What else in the argument can or cannot be proven?

It doesn't matter if the IRS can be completely abolished. It could be greatly reduced in size and cost.

Why isn't that acceptable?

I have no problem with a national sales tax in lieu of an income tax as I think it would generate more revenue and be less costly to implement.

I never said it was unacceptable.

I am trying to ascertain what parts of the argument have any validity, and from there, determine the value of the concept of a 'Fair Tax'.

I will give you only this much.

Simply calling it a fair tax does not make it a fair tax, just as saying that a group of people who are against Fascists (antifa) are actually against fascism. This is an example and being introduced into the discussion. It is an example of how a title does not necessarily denote the truth about the object.

Well it is fair in the sense that everyone is treated exactly the same under the law. There are no special carve outs, no targeted deductions etc

From the website, FairTax.org

"There are exemptions from the tax for used and intangible property, for property or services purchased for business, export, or investment purposes, and for state government functions."

Would you consider that a carve-out, or a targeted deduction/exemption?

It is interesting that the organization advocating this Fair Tax on a page that says it is a copy of Senate Bill 18, doesn't actually have the language of the bill on it.

 

[Blues Man]

If you're going to tell me what I said use the quote function. And I didn't start the thread.

You need to learn to read

You're right. You are NOT the OP. I wasn't really paying attention to who I was replying to, but to what was being said. I apologize for that. So, adjust what I said appropriately, that one of the basis for the discussion is that the IRS would be eliminated. In deconstructing the argument, we see that the statement does not hold up.

What else in the argument can or cannot be proven?

It doesn't matter if the IRS can be completely abolished. It could be greatly reduced in size and cost.

Why isn't that acceptable?

I have no problem with a national sales tax in lieu of an income tax as I think it would generate more revenue and be less costly to implement.

I never said it was unacceptable.

I am trying to ascertain what parts of the argument have any validity, and from there, determine the value of the concept of a 'Fair Tax'.

I will give you only this much.

Simply calling it a fair tax does not make it a fair tax, just as saying that a group of people who are against Fascists (antifa) are actually against fascism. This is an example and being introduced into the discussion. It is an example of how a title does not necessarily denote the truth about the object.

Well it is fair in the sense that everyone is treated exactly the same under the law. There are no special carve outs, no targeted deductions etc

From the website, FairTax.org

"There are exemptions from the tax for used and intangible property, for property or services purchased for business, export, or investment purposes, and for state government functions."

Would you consider that a carve-out, or a targeted deduction/exemption?

It is interesting that the organization advocating this Fair Tax on a page that says it is a copy of Senate Bill 19, doesn't actually have the language of the bill on it.

I never agreed with the FAir Tax organization on their version of the tax.

In fact I said that in this thread. The entire idea of a "Prebate" which is nothing but a monthly welfare check is a costly and unnecessary feel good add on.

If we are going to implement a national sales tax then it should be as simple and as inexpensive to implement as possible

 

[CWayne]

You're right. You are NOT the OP. I wasn't really paying attention to who I was replying to, but to what was being said. I apologize for that. So, adjust what I said appropriately, that one of the basis for the discussion is that the IRS would be eliminated. In deconstructing the argument, we see that the statement does not hold up.

What else in the argument can or cannot be proven?

It doesn't matter if the IRS can be completely abolished. It could be greatly reduced in size and cost.

Why isn't that acceptable?

I have no problem with a national sales tax in lieu of an income tax as I think it would generate more revenue and be less costly to implement.

I never said it was unacceptable.

I am trying to ascertain what parts of the argument have any validity, and from there, determine the value of the concept of a 'Fair Tax'.

I will give you only this much.

Simply calling it a fair tax does not make it a fair tax, just as saying that a group of people who are against Fascists (antifa) are actually against fascism. This is an example and being introduced into the discussion. It is an example of how a title does not necessarily denote the truth about the object.

Well it is fair in the sense that everyone is treated exactly the same under the law. There are no special carve outs, no targeted deductions etc

From the website, FairTax.org

"There are exemptions from the tax for used and intangible property, for property or services purchased for business, export, or investment purposes, and for state government functions."

Would you consider that a carve-out, or a targeted deduction/exemption?

It is interesting that the organization advocating this Fair Tax on a page that says it is a copy of Senate Bill 19, doesn't actually have the language of the bill on it.

I never agreed with the FAir Tax organization on their version of the tax.

In fact I said that in this thread. The entire idea of a "Prebate" which is nothing but a monthly welfare check is a costly and unnecessary feel good add on.

If we are going to implement a national sales tax then it should be as simple and as inexpensive to implement as possible

Okay. Do you have any resources that provide information on how a Fair Tax would be implemented, or are we discussing your personal views on the subject? There is nothing wrong with discussing your views or that your views are wrong, but it changes the complexity in which I would discuss this. I personally think that forums like these should not be contests of whose opinion articles has more validity, but this place is what it is.

 

[Cellblock2429]

What would boost savings is paying reasonable interest on savings.

Yes pay reasonable interest & repblicans stop printing money

/----/ " repblicans stop printing money'
But we Republicans like printing money. In fact, I'm running off some $20 bills with Trump's picture on them right now.

 

[Blues Man]

It doesn't matter if the IRS can be completely abolished. It could be greatly reduced in size and cost.

Why isn't that acceptable?

I have no problem with a national sales tax in lieu of an income tax as I think it would generate more revenue and be less costly to implement.

I never said it was unacceptable.

I am trying to ascertain what parts of the argument have any validity, and from there, determine the value of the concept of a 'Fair Tax'.

I will give you only this much.

Simply calling it a fair tax does not make it a fair tax, just as saying that a group of people who are against Fascists (antifa) are actually against fascism. This is an example and being introduced into the discussion. It is an example of how a title does not necessarily denote the truth about the object.

Well it is fair in the sense that everyone is treated exactly the same under the law. There are no special carve outs, no targeted deductions etc

From the website, FairTax.org

"There are exemptions from the tax for used and intangible property, for property or services purchased for business, export, or investment purposes, and for state government functions."

Would you consider that a carve-out, or a targeted deduction/exemption?

It is interesting that the organization advocating this Fair Tax on a page that says it is a copy of Senate Bill 19, doesn't actually have the language of the bill on it.

I never agreed with the FAir Tax organization on their version of the tax.

In fact I said that in this thread. The entire idea of a "Prebate" which is nothing but a monthly welfare check is a costly and unnecessary feel good add on.

If we are going to implement a national sales tax then it should be as simple and as inexpensive to implement as possible

Okay. Do you have any resources that provide information on how a Fair Tax would be implemented, or are we discussing your personal views on the subject? There is nothing wrong with discussing your views or that your views are wrong, but it changes the complexity in which I would discuss this. I personally think that forums like these should not be contests of whose opinion articles has more validity, but this place is what it is.

All the info is on their website.

As I said I do think a national sales tax is a viable alternative to the income tax. I have my many disagreements with the Fair Tax plan but I still think that a national sales tax is a viable and very good option

 

[CWayne]

I never said it was unacceptable.

I am trying to ascertain what parts of the argument have any validity, and from there, determine the value of the concept of a 'Fair Tax'.

I will give you only this much.

Simply calling it a fair tax does not make it a fair tax, just as saying that a group of people who are against Fascists (antifa) are actually against fascism. This is an example and being introduced into the discussion. It is an example of how a title does not necessarily denote the truth about the object.

Well it is fair in the sense that everyone is treated exactly the same under the law. There are no special carve outs, no targeted deductions etc

From the website, FairTax.org

"There are exemptions from the tax for used and intangible property, for property or services purchased for business, export, or investment purposes, and for state government functions."

Would you consider that a carve-out, or a targeted deduction/exemption?

It is interesting that the organization advocating this Fair Tax on a page that says it is a copy of Senate Bill 19, doesn't actually have the language of the bill on it.

I never agreed with the FAir Tax organization on their version of the tax.

In fact I said that in this thread. The entire idea of a "Prebate" which is nothing but a monthly welfare check is a costly and unnecessary feel good add on.

If we are going to implement a national sales tax then it should be as simple and as inexpensive to implement as possible

Okay. Do you have any resources that provide information on how a Fair Tax would be implemented, or are we discussing your personal views on the subject? There is nothing wrong with discussing your views or that your views are wrong, but it changes the complexity in which I would discuss this. I personally think that forums like these should not be contests of whose opinion articles has more validity, but this place is what it is.

All the info is on their website.

As I said I do think a national sales tax is a viable alternative to the income tax. I have my many disagreements with the Fair Tax plan but I still think that a national sales tax is a viable and very good option

Fair enough.

 

[rightwinger]

Why would a fair tax get rid of the IRS?

They still have to review returns and verify income.

 

[Mac-7]

I prefer the Flat Tax on every dollar earned by every person rich or poor

 

[dudmuck]

I never said it was unacceptable.

I am trying to ascertain what parts of the argument have any validity, and from there, determine the value of the concept of a 'Fair Tax'.

I will give you only this much.

Simply calling it a fair tax does not make it a fair tax, just as saying that a group of people who are against Fascists (antifa) are actually against fascism. This is an example and being introduced into the discussion. It is an example of how a title does not necessarily denote the truth about the object.

Well it is fair in the sense that everyone is treated exactly the same under the law. There are no special carve outs, no targeted deductions etc

From the website, FairTax.org

"There are exemptions from the tax for used and intangible property, for property or services purchased for business, export, or investment purposes, and for state government functions."

Would you consider that a carve-out, or a targeted deduction/exemption?

It is interesting that the organization advocating this Fair Tax on a page that says it is a copy of Senate Bill 19, doesn't actually have the language of the bill on it.

I never agreed with the FAir Tax organization on their version of the tax.

In fact I said that in this thread. The entire idea of a "Prebate" which is nothing but a monthly welfare check is a costly and unnecessary feel good add on.

If we are going to implement a national sales tax then it should be as simple and as inexpensive to implement as possible

Okay. Do you have any resources that provide information on how a Fair Tax would be implemented, or are we discussing your personal views on the subject? There is nothing wrong with discussing your views or that your views are wrong, but it changes the complexity in which I would discuss this. I personally think that forums like these should not be contests of whose opinion articles has more validity, but this place is what it is.

All the info is on their website.

As I said I do think a national sales tax is a viable alternative to the income tax. I have my many disagreements with the Fair Tax plan but I still think that a national sales tax is a viable and very good option

There is nothing fair about shifting taxation from income to sales given that poor people spend a larger percentage of their income on goods with sales tax. It's a regressive taxation that harms the poor disproportionately.

 

[Cellblock2429]

I have the answer!

-Jail all employers that knowingly hire illegal aliens.

-End all Republican worker visa programs.

-Base Federal tax for corporations at 30% of revenue.

-Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2019 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.

-Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees with the Feds refunding city, State, and fees.

-Companies with unlimited employees; employee expenses above the deduction are subsidized at 100% with funds usually give back to the States.

-Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2019 price structure.

-Remove the FICA limit.

-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 15 years which will eliminate inflation.

-Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.

-Make inversion illegal.

My plan would reduce business costs for employees and taxes to 30%. That's a 15%-30% drop.

My plan would put BILLIONS into the economy daily.

My plan would put the $100 trillion plus currently owned by corporate America back into the economy.

My plan would end all welfare.

My plan would significantly increase social security and pension payments.

/----/ What a bunch of screwball ideas to destroy the greatest economy in the world. BTW "Base Federal tax for corporations at 30% of revenue." This tax would be passed directly to YOU the consumer in everything you buy -- everything. -"Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. " This would drive up unemployment and shut down marginal businesses who can't afford the high impact this would have on their bottom line along with all the other draconian wackjob ideas you have. But Uncle Joe Stalin would be proud of you.

 

[Blues Man]

Why would a fair tax get rid of the IRS?

They still have to review returns and verify income.

If the income tax is eliminated there will be no tax returns to audit

A sales tax does not require any reporting other than a monthly statement generated by the retailer, an online form and a bank draft

 

[Cellblock2429]

Why would a fair tax get rid of the IRS?

They still have to review returns and verify income.

If the income tax is eliminated there will be no tax returns to audit

A sales tax does not require any reporting other than a monthly statement generated by the retailer, an online form and a bank draft

/----/ I'm no fan of the IRS but it will never go away.

 

[Blues Man]

Well it is fair in the sense that everyone is treated exactly the same under the law. There are no special carve outs, no targeted deductions etc

From the website, FairTax.org

"There are exemptions from the tax for used and intangible property, for property or services purchased for business, export, or investment purposes, and for state government functions."

Would you consider that a carve-out, or a targeted deduction/exemption?

It is interesting that the organization advocating this Fair Tax on a page that says it is a copy of Senate Bill 19, doesn't actually have the language of the bill on it.

I never agreed with the FAir Tax organization on their version of the tax.

In fact I said that in this thread. The entire idea of a "Prebate" which is nothing but a monthly welfare check is a costly and unnecessary feel good add on.

If we are going to implement a national sales tax then it should be as simple and as inexpensive to implement as possible

Okay. Do you have any resources that provide information on how a Fair Tax would be implemented, or are we discussing your personal views on the subject? There is nothing wrong with discussing your views or that your views are wrong, but it changes the complexity in which I would discuss this. I personally think that forums like these should not be contests of whose opinion articles has more validity, but this place is what it is.

All the info is on their website.

As I said I do think a national sales tax is a viable alternative to the income tax. I have my many disagreements with the Fair Tax plan but I still think that a national sales tax is a viable and very good option

There is nothing fair about shifting taxation from income to sales given that poor people spend a larger percentage of their income on goods with sales tax. It's a regressive taxation that harms the poor disproportionately.

I disagree.

If it works out to be less than the income tax as a percentage of their income it is better than income taxes.

And in all reality I think people will be a little more discerning on what they spend their money on.

Now that said and one of the ways where I depart from the Fair Tax people I do not think groceries, prescription drugs and clothing ( up to a certain dollar amount) should be taxed at all

 

[Blues Man]

Why would a fair tax get rid of the IRS?

They still have to review returns and verify income.

If the income tax is eliminated there will be no tax returns to audit

A sales tax does not require any reporting other than a monthly statement generated by the retailer, an online form and a bank draft

/----/ I'm no fan of the IRS but it will never go away.

I never said it would but it could be greatly reduced in size and cost and it wouldn't be targeting individual citizens but rather only those who actually collect the sales tax.

There would be no more wage garnishments, fees, interest and penalties for regular people and no need to file tax returns anymore

 

[Sunsettommy]

A "fair tax" is nothing but a new name for a flat tax.

Which is a HUGE tax cut for the very wealthy and a MONSTER tax increase for everyone else.

False!

Flat Tax--- A "flat tax" is an income tax system in which everyone pays the same tax rate regardless of how much income they have.

Fair Tax-- The FairTax is a national sales tax that treats every person equally and allows American businesses to thrive, while generating the same tax revenue as the current four-million-word-plus tax code. Under the FairTax, every person living in the United States pays a sales tax on purchases of new goods and services, excluding necessities due to the prebate.

=================================

Fair Tax makes it impossible to cheat on taxes, and no IRS needed as it is immediately applied on every purchase. Save a lot of money and headache in the process.

Fair Tax is way better than Flat Tax, since there are no need to keep track of anything as it is applied every time you buy something. No more tax filings, No more paperwork, no more having to pay more or get a refund on last years taxes, since all that is eliminated by Fair Tax.

The rest you say is old worn out baloney.

No need? How do you track what tax was paid on each purchase, and then where do you send the collected taxes?

Businesses are already set up to collect state sales taxes and send them in monthly or quarterly adding a federal sales tax would be very easy.

yes, which means that they would have to send it somewhere, both State and Fed. In other words, an IRS or a similar agency. So, right off the bat, this concept of 'doing away with the IRS' doesn't pan out.

All they would have to do is set up a bank draft to the United States Treasury.

It really is a lot less labor intensive than dealing with over a couple hundred million individual and business tax returns every year so even if the IRS cannot be eliminated it could be drastically reduced in size and cost.

I don't know if you know how collecting sales taxes works but it is very simple.

All you have to do is program your point of sale software to add the tax then you run a report monthly or quarterly depending on your schedule. All you have to do after that is get on the state website input the numbers and approve a bank draft.

It literally takes less than an hour a month

I see that their replies makes clear they are not reading the links I posted that answers their questions/objections. Yes the Sales Tax would go to the TREASURY Department, as explained in the proposed Congressional bill and by the FairTax website.

We have have too many people here showing their laziness to learn what are being proposed and talked about.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Businesses are already set up to collect state sales taxes and send them in monthly or quarterly adding a federal sales tax would be very easy.

yes, which means that they would have to send it somewhere, both State and Fed. In other words, an IRS or a similar agency. So, right off the bat, this concept of 'doing away with the IRS' doesn't pan out.

All they would have to do is set up a bank draft to the United States Treasury.

It really is a lot less labor intensive than dealing with over a couple hundred million individual and business tax returns every year so even if the IRS cannot be eliminated it could be drastically reduced in size and cost

In other words, an IRS, which in case you were not aware of it, is part of the US Treasury.

So the fuck what?

I never said the IRS could be abolished but it could be greatly reduced in size and cost

Don't ignore the good in favor of the perfect

So, in your subject line for this thread, you say, "The fair Tax would get rid of the IRS."

Are you familiar with the concept of 'deconstructing an argument'?

One picks out the salient points of an argument and then tries to prove or disprove the statement relating to that argument.

So, I always start with the obvious points and go from there.

We now see that one of the main highlights, as described by you, is that the IRS would be eliminated is factually incorrect.

I wonder what else could be proven or disproven?

It is in the proposed Bill to abolish the IRS.

I posted several links showing this, yet you still not any wiser.......