The Great Tax Lie

[indago]

pegwinn wrote:

A truly fair tax is ..... the Fairtax. A simple sales tax collected at the final point of sale. No IRS for you. Instead it piggybacks on the existing infrastructure of the states who already collect a sales tax.

It is noted:
----------------------------------------------------------
(d) Liability for Tax-

(1) IN GENERAL- The person using or consuming taxable property or services in the United States is liable for the tax imposed by this section, except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection.

(2) EXCEPTION WHERE TAX PAID TO SELLER- A person using or consuming a taxable property or service in the United States is not liable for the tax imposed by this section if the person pays the tax to a person selling the taxable property or service and receives from such person a purchaser's receipt within the meaning of section 510.
----------------------------------------------------------

Government was never granted the power to lay a direct tax upon the inhabitants of the States. I don't know why this FairTax couldn't be an excise tax like the federal income tax is now. The tax could be imposed on business, with the amount of the sales being the measurement for the amount of the tax owed. Little wonder this legislation isn't getting anywhere. It's WAY too complicated.

 

[jreeves]

Not sure I understand the logic of these sort of posts? Why would anyone spend time defending the rich or arguing about whether they pay enough taxes? Are you rich and feel you want to keep more?

The rich must laugh at this sort of stuff, if you have millions there is not much need to worry about taxes at all. Does the poster know lots of rich people who are suffering under this great burden? I know many and I gotta say they ain't suffering. And if your income is several million or even a measly million 10% of that is a great deal more than 10% of 30K, so yes, they pay more and a higher percentage - SO WHAT!

"If you believe the conservative rhetoric on economics, this combination of high taxes, a large public sector, and lavish welfare benefits ought to be killing the Danish economy. But it's not. In fact, Denmark's economy has thrived. And nowhere is that more apparent than in the job market. By the time Rasmussen left office in 2001, the unemployment rate had fallen from a 1994 peak of 9.6 percent to 4.3 percent; in 2002, it fell below the U.S. rate, where it has remained ever since. For the most recent quarter of 2006, Denmark's standardized unemployment rate was 3.6 percent, compared with 4.7 percent in the United States. Moreover, while Europe has a reputation for fostering cadres of idle youth (a reputation that, in countries like France, has at least some basis in reality), in Denmark, a mere 3 percent of its 15- to 19-year-olds are neither in school nor working--the second-best rate in the developed world. (Tiny Luxembourg is first.) In the United States, by comparison, the figure is about 7 percent.

Another important measure of overall economic health is GDP per capita, which in effect approximates the wealth generated per person per year. Here, the United States remains near the top of the developed world, at $39,732. Denmark, though also in the top fifth of the oecd, is at just $31,932. It's a significant difference, but one that reflects, in part, the fact that Americans simply work more hours, don't get as much vacation, and can't take such generous pregnancy or sick leaves. GDP per capita is also an average, pulled up by the extraordinary wealth of America's elite. Once you consider the distribution of income and material goods, it becomes apparent that typical citizens in Denmark are doing as well as--and quite possibly better than--their American counterparts."

http://www.pierretristam.com/Bobst/07/wf010507.htm


"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well."

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxgrowth.htm

More food for thought on Denmark's example....


http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/05/business/labor.php

 

[Skull Pilot]

I'm afraid that plan has a major flaw. Because it is still based on income the employer will have to report your income to the IRS. You will still get a W2 and have to file IOT to verify that you didn't earn at another job. So long as tax is based on income you will have an IRS as an enforcement agency.

A truly fair tax is ..... the Fairtax. A simple sales tax collected at the final point of sale. No IRS for you. Instead it piggybacks on the existing infrastructure of the states who already collect a sales tax.

Best of all there are no forms for you. And, everyone pays. When the drug dealer pays cash for the escalade...... he pays. When the illegal alien buys food...... he pays. Tourists pay. Paris Hilton Pays.

Another advantage, the Fairtax is already submitted in legislation. Read the actual bill, here. For a less boring and dry read..... go here.

As one who employs people, I already send withholdings to the feds and state for my employees. rather than some formula based on total income, the number of kids and if they're married, i could easily send the 15% of each employees gross income.

since there would be no deductions for children, interest etc there really would be no need to file as your employer has already submitted your taxes for you. at year end your W2 would consist of 2 lines your gross pay and what tax was sent in for you by your employer. ( there's social security too but don't get me started on that) obviously this changes a little for the self employed but it will still be easier and we'll all end up with more money in our pockets at the end of the year. i'll concede that we will still need the IRS although it could be a fraction of the size it is now.

a consumption tax is not a bad idea as you could lower your tax burden by not consuming as much which is fine by me. a good solution may be to have a flat tax coupled with a small consumption tax of 3-5%

there will always be those who work for cash and don't pay taxes but the number is pretty small in the scheme of things it's just a fact of life and the gov't knows this and doesn't sweat it too much

 

[pegwinn]

pegwinn wrote:

It is noted:
----------------------------------------------------------
(d) Liability for Tax-

(1) IN GENERAL- The person using or consuming taxable property or services in the United States is liable for the tax imposed by this section, except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection.

(2) EXCEPTION WHERE TAX PAID TO SELLER- A person using or consuming a taxable property or service in the United States is not liable for the tax imposed by this section if the person pays the tax to a person selling the taxable property or service and receives from such person a purchaser's receipt within the meaning of section 510.
----------------------------------------------------------

Government was never granted the power to lay a direct tax upon the inhabitants of the States. I don't know why this FairTax couldn't be an excise tax like the federal income tax is now. The tax could be imposed on business, with the amount of the sales being the measurement for the amount of the tax owed. Little wonder this legislation isn't getting anywhere. It's WAY too complicated.

With respect I am no tax genius. I am sure that there are differences in the nuances of "direct tax" and "excise tax" but without doing some studying I am not competent to discuss them.

For me, a reading of what you posted tells me that I would not be liable to the .gov for the fairtax. The retailer is. I would pay him/her and it would so state on my receipt. Thus, I think that skirts the "direct tax".

Also, meaning no disrespect, but semantics aside, the IRS directly contacts me and will summarily confiscate my property directly if I don't pay up.

Also, considering the income tax code is about 67,000 pages v. the fairtax's 133 I don't understand how you come to the idea that it is complicated.

If I am off base, please help me out.

As one who employs people, I already send withholdings to the feds and state for my employees. rather than some formula based on total income, the number of kids and if they're married, i could easily send the 15% of each employees gross income.

since there would be no deductions for children, interest etc there really would be no need to file as your employer has already submitted your taxes for you. at year end your W2 would consist of 2 lines your gross pay and what tax was sent in for you by your employer. ( there's social security too but don't get me started on that) obviously this changes a little for the self employed but it will still be easier and we'll all end up with more money in our pockets at the end of the year. i'll concede that we will still need the IRS although it could be a fraction of the size it is now.

a consumption tax is not a bad idea as you could lower your tax burden by not consuming as much which is fine by me. a good solution may be to have a flat tax coupled with a small consumption tax of 3-5%

there will always be those who work for cash and don't pay taxes but the number is pretty small in the scheme of things it's just a fact of life and the gov't knows this and doesn't sweat it too much

I don't understand your position honestly. If you are an employer, then the fairtax eliminates withholding completely. I completely agree that a flat non-negotiable tax on income is better than what we have now. But, all it does is reduce your reporting requirements. The fairtax eliminates them.

Additionally, everyone participates under the fairtax. Tourists, Drug Dealers, Illegals, Billionaires, literally everyone in America would be a part of the solution.

Finally; Would you personally prefer to be taxed on the money you make, or the money you spend?

 

[indago]

pegwinn posted:

With respect I am no tax genius. I am sure that there are differences in the nuances of "direct tax" and "excise tax" but without doing some studying I am not competent to discuss them.

I have already posted concerning the direct tax (post #31) See if this doesn't compare with what is written in the Constitution.

For me, a reading of what you posted tells me that I would not be liable to the .gov for the fairtax. The retailer is.

It is written: "The person using or consuming taxable property or services in the United States is liable for the tax". That is a direct tax.

Also, meaning no disrespect, but semantics aside, the IRS directly contacts me and will summarily confiscate my property directly if I don't pay up.

Then, somehow, you have indicated to IRS that you are liable for a tax.

 

[Gunny]

All I know is this: I pay 30% of my earned income in taxes. That's before the various Federal, state and/or local taxes for just about any and everything I use or buy.

It's bullshit. I still have to pay for my property/posessions, insurance, and any and all social services I use; yet, I'm penalized for earning my money so some slug can have cable TV and Hi-speed internet.

Y'all can quibble about what tax is fairest or whatever, but the bottom-line is we're getting screwed to enable a corrupt, bureaucratic monster and the do-nothings they foster in order to perpetuate their own existence.

 

[indago]

GunnyL wrote:

All I know is this: I pay 30% of my earned income in taxes. That's before the various Federal, state and/or local taxes for just about any and everything I use or buy.

It's bullshit. I still have to pay for my property/posessions, insurance, and any and all social services I use; yet, I'm penalized for earning my money so some slug can have cable TV and Hi-speed internet.

Y'all can quibble about what tax is fairest or whatever, but the bottom-line is we're getting screwed to enable a corrupt, bureaucratic monster and the do-nothings they foster in order to perpetuate their own existence.

Are you interested in change?

-------------------------------------------------------------------
British Officer: "You don't think we're just going to walk out of India?"

Gandhi: "Yes. In the end, you will walk out, because 100,000 Englishmen simply cannot control 350,000,000 Indians if those Indians refuse to cooperate. And that is what we intend to achieve: peaceful, nonviolent, non-cooperation — till you, yourselves, see the wisdom of leaving"
-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[pegwinn]

pegwinn posted:

I have already posted concerning the direct tax (post #31) See if this doesn't compare with what is written in the Constitution. Yes, it does. Perhaps I am off base again, but that sounds like a head tax. IOW an arbitrary amount set upon the head for simply being in the country and breathing the air.

It is written: "The person using or consuming taxable property or services in the United States is liable for the tax". That is a direct tax. I dunno. The next para states:

(2) EXCEPTION WHERE TAX PAID TO SELLER- A person using or consuming a taxable property or service in the United States is not liable for the tax imposed by this section if the person pays the tax to a person selling the taxable property or service and receives from such person a purchaser's receipt within the meaning of section 510.

Since it is a sales tax, the second para would always apply. Again, I am no expert. So, if you have some kind of insight....

Then, somehow, you have indicated to IRS that you are liable for a tax. Uh yeah. And so did most of the adult working population of the country. The USSC may call it an excise tax, but it is fairly direct to me.

The bottom line is that the current tax code is too long, too corrupted, allows the pols to reward & punish without accountability, eliminates your privacy, and requires you to prove that you are in compliance instead of them proving you are not.

The proposed Fairtax addresses those items and more.

 

[indago]

pegwinn posted:

the income tax code is about 67,000 pages

How many of those "67,000 pages" do you believe pertains to you?

 

[indago]

"A person using or consuming a taxable property or service in the United States is not liable for the tax imposed by this section if the person pays the tax..."

He's not liable for the tax if he pays it? What kind of language is that? You talk about "corrupted"...

 

[indago]

It is recorded in the Congressional Record, along with a history of the "income tax":

"The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax." — Congressional Record — House of Representatives — 27 March 1943 pg 2579

 

[Skull Pilot]

RetiredGySgt wrote:

And that brings us back to square one:

A Constitutional Amendment would have to be passed to grant government the power to lay a direct tax upon the inhabitants of the States.

Direct taxes are taxes upon the person and his property. Government was never granted the power to lay a direct tax upon the inhabitants of the States. Direct taxes must be apportioned to the States.

we already HAVE an income tax the only thing changing would be the percentage paid by the taxee.

 

[indago]

Skull Pilot wrote:

we already HAVE an income tax the only thing changing would be the percentage paid by the taxee.

Yes, we do, and it has been categorized as an excise by the Supreme Court, and defined also: "Excises are "taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale, or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges." Cooley, Const. Lim. 7th ed. 680 ...the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of privileges,..."

 

[Skull Pilot]

With respect I am no tax genius. I am sure that there are differences in the nuances of "direct tax" and "excise tax" but without doing some studying I am not competent to discuss them.

For me, a reading of what you posted tells me that I would not be liable to the .gov for the fairtax. The retailer is. I would pay him/her and it would so state on my receipt. Thus, I think that skirts the "direct tax".

Also, meaning no disrespect, but semantics aside, the IRS directly contacts me and will summarily confiscate my property directly if I don't pay up.

Also, considering the income tax code is about 67,000 pages v. the fairtax's 133 I don't understand how you come to the idea that it is complicated.

If I am off base, please help me out.



I don't understand your position honestly. If you are an employer, then the fairtax eliminates withholding completely. I completely agree that a flat non-negotiable tax on income is better than what we have now. But, all it does is reduce your reporting requirements. The fairtax eliminates them.

Additionally, everyone participates under the fairtax. Tourists, Drug Dealers, Illegals, Billionaires, literally everyone in America would be a part of the solution.

Finally; Would you personally prefer to be taxed on the money you make, or the money you spend?

i'm not worried about my reporting requirements. i would like to see some equity in the tax laws

while the consumption tax is a pretty good idea especially in a country where people routinely spend more than they make i just dont see it being voted into law

and if for some unfathomable reason the public wises up and starts spending less what happens?(i know..but it could happen)

 

[pegwinn]

pegwinn posted:

How many of those "67,000 pages" do you believe pertains to you?

Irrelevant. It's the totality of the thing. At sixty seven thousand pages I don't believe any single individual can answer your question with any certainty of accuracy. At one hundred thirty-three pages, you can read the entire legislation in on sitting if you possess the self discipline to do so.

"A person using or consuming a taxable property or service in the United States is not liable for the tax imposed by this section if the person pays the tax..."

He's not liable for the tax if he pays it? What kind of language is that? You talk about "corrupted"...

You didn't finish the quote. Just like in all but a scant handful of states, you pay the tax to the retailer so long as the tax is noted on the receipt. If the retailer fails to report the sale and forward the tax, you are absolved of any liability. Even a non-genius like me can figger it out. After all it's only 133 pages.

It is recorded in the Congressional Record, along with a history of the "income tax":

"The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax." — Congressional Record — House of Representatives — 27 March 1943 pg 2579

What kind of language is that? You talk about "corrupted"...

I took the liberty of using your own words since they expressed my thought exactly. I appreciate the honesty on your part of proving the point I made earlier. Thank you.

i'm not worried about my reporting requirements. i would like to see some equity in the tax laws

while the consumption tax is a pretty good idea especially in a country where people routinely spend more than they make i just dont see it being voted into law

and if for some unfathomable reason the public wises up and starts spending less what happens?(i know..but it could happen)

Equity. Cool. Everyone pays the exact same rate. The coolest part is that you are rewarded for working harder by not continuously being bumped into higher brackets. And since you are taxed on what you spend instead of what you make..... you are also rewarded for savings and investments as well.

Even now, as awareness of the fairtax grows, it's a long shot. Kinda like the American Revolution was a long shot.

I think that the tax receipts could be a barometer of public support or ire against the .gov. Here in Texas I read stories about people who were opposed to something a municipal government wanted to fund. The method of funding was to adjust the local sales and property taxes. The citizens moved to another county to purchase stuff and home sales plummeted. Obviously this is merely an anecdotal observation and purely speculative.

If the public were to cease consumption, the government revenues would not cease. Currently the Income Tax is forty-three percent of federal revenues according to encarta.

 

[Toro]

All I know is this: I pay 30% of my earned income in taxes. That's before the various Federal, state and/or local taxes for just about any and everything I use or buy.

It's bullshit. I still have to pay for my property/posessions, insurance, and any and all social services I use; yet, I'm penalized for earning my money so some slug can have cable TV and Hi-speed internet.

Y'all can quibble about what tax is fairest or whatever, but the bottom-line is we're getting screwed to enable a corrupt, bureaucratic monster and the do-nothings they foster in order to perpetuate their own existence.

I earn an above average income and live in Florida. I estimate that I pay ~25% of my income in taxes. And that's all taxes - income, sales, gas, property, capital gains, interest, dividends, etc. I have paid taxes in five jurisdictions in three countries, and that is by far the lowest proportion even though I earned less elsewhere.

I'm hardly burdened.

 

[jreeves]

I earn an above average income and live in Florida. I estimate that I pay ~25% of my income in taxes. And that's all taxes - income, sales, gas, property, capital gains, interest, dividends, etc. I have paid taxes in five jurisdictions in three countries, and that is by far the lowest proportion even though I earned less elsewhere.

I'm hardly burdened.

Since your not bothered why don't you go ahead and step it up a little, pay until right before it becomes a burden. Then if a few million also took the same path maybe we could get some tax relief in this country....Oh never mind it really doesn't matter how much tax revenue there is the government would just continue spending....

 

[indago]

I had posted:

"A person using or consuming a taxable property or service in the United States is not liable for the tax imposed by this section if the person pays the tax..."

He's not liable for the tax if he pays it? What kind of language is that? You talk about "corrupted"...

pegwinn, then, responded:

You didn't finish the quote. Just like in all but a scant handful of states, you pay the tax to the retailer so long as the tax is noted on the receipt. If the retailer fails to report the sale and forward the tax, you are absolved of any liability. Even a non-genius like me can figger it out. After all it's only 133 pages.

Concerning the sales tax in the State of Michigan: "The tax has been held to be a privilege fee imposed upon persons doing business at retail." — Miles Laboratories, Inc v Simon 33 F supp 962

And, according to the Supreme Court of the Stated of Michigan: "The tax is not imposed upon the consumer, but upon those engaged in the business of making sales at retail".

It was noted that the retailer could add the tax to the cost of doing business, and list the tax on the bill, or just list the price of the item, or items, sold without lising the tax included, although the tax had already been included in the total price of the item. It is an excise tax. The tax is imposed on the "act of doing business at retail", the amount of the sales being the measurement for determining the amount of the tax owed. Thus, it is called: "Sales Tax".

I had posted:

It is recorded in the Congressional Record, along with a history of the "income tax":

"The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax." — Congressional Record — House of Representatives — 27 March 1943 pg 2579

pegwinn, then, responded:

"What kind of language is that? You talk about "corrupted"... I took the liberty of using your own words since they expressed my thought exactly. I appreciate the honesty on your part of proving the point I made earlier. Thank you.

The words were taken from not only the Congressional Record, but House of Representatives Reports 416, and 1093, "The Excise Tax Bill", concerning "income tax". The federal "income tax" is an excise tax upon the "act of doing business", with the income being the measurement used for determining the amount of the tax owed. It's really a simple concept.



-

 

[pegwinn]

It's really a simple concept.

...that only takes sixty-seven thousand pages to explain, $10,027,262,000 in IRS operating costs (2005) to collect, and two hundred sixty-five billion dollars in compliance costs for 2005.

I will take the one hundred thirty-three page fairtax even if it isn't simple.

 

[indago]

pegwinn posted:

...that only takes sixty-seven thousand pages to explain, $10,027,262,000 in IRS operating costs to collect, and two hundred sixty-five billion dollars in compliance costs for 2005. I will take the one hundred thirty-three page fairtax even if it isn't simple.

How many pages do you suppose the IRC was a hundred years ago?


-------------------------------------------
If you don't waive your rights and give it to us, we'll take it! — IRS Modus Operandi




-