For all you Wrongpublicans supporting the 'Fair Tax'

[bripat9643]

I think you mean "African-American," bigot.

You really are one stupid ****. You don't even know what the "black market" is, do you? Here's a hint, it's not a grocery store where black people shop, you witless dung heap.

They're called African-Americans, bigot.

And of course I know what that term means. It's a racist euphemism used to refer to a place where stolen or illegal goods are sold, so named because African-Americans were alleged to be the sellers and main buyers at such places.

And you conservatards thought my degree in African-American History was useless. No, bigots, I'm wise to your discriminatory ways. I don't let even the most subtle racism slide.

There isn't the slightest thing racist about it, you witless ****. It's called "black" because it's hidden. It's in the dark. Economists have been using the term for centuries, and they still use it full view of hundreds of students in universities all over the country.

Is the term "black Friday" racist? "In the black?" "black mark beside one's name?" "black out?" "black sheep in the family?" "A black day?" "The pot calling the kettle black?"

It's hard to believe anyone could be as stupid as you.

 

[bripat9643]

Part III: The Mathematical Deception of the FairTax™

I can hear your conservatard reactions to the title now. "B-B-BUT, IT'S FAIR! How can it be deceptive?!"

I'll explain.

Some of you may have been wondering why in some instances, the FairTax™ is cited as being a 23% sales tax, and in others, it's 30%. This is because of how prices are presented to the consumer.

Traditionally, goods are presented as being tax-exclusive rather than tax-inclusive. An example: You go to Walmart to buy a picture frame in which to place your life-size printout of Rachel Maddow. The frame is priced at $50. Is this the price you pay? Unless you happen to live in one of the minority of states that doesn't levy a sales tax, of course not. You pay $50, PLUS whatever sales tax rate is charged at the point of sale. This is called tax-exclusive pricing. This is where the 30% rate comes from.

What about the 23% figure? That's tax-inclusive, which means that the rate given to us is presented when calculating the percentage of tax AFTER you have added the tax to the cost of the goods you're purchasing. Sound confusing? Good, that's exactly what Congressional Wrongpublicans were angling for when they introduced it.

To further our understanding, let's return the our Rachel Maddow picture frame example. Under a tax-inclusive system, we may pay $100 for the frame, and tax-happy politicians could make the claim that the sales tax rate levied on it is "only 50%" since the taxes represent only 50% of the amount we pay for the item. But it's a $50 frame, so the sales taxes were an additional $50--making the sales tax rate not 50%, but in fact 100%, as the tax rate on the frame is 100% of the frame's value, thus doubling the amount you have to pay for it. Tax-exclusive rates are much more honest, as they reflect the cost the seller is charging you, and calculate the amount of tax separately.

The amounts proposed by the FairTax™ are not quite as drastic, so the difference between the tax-inclusive and tax-exclusive calculations winds up being only about 7%; even still, this is rather drastic, especially when you consider that many states only charge 7% or less in sales tax to begin with.

23% is the tax exclusive rate, numskull, so all your claims based on that are pure horseshit. I'd like to know where you come up with this 30% rate, because no one ever proposed that.

READ. THE. BILL.

Bill Text - 113th Congress (2013-2014) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

CTRL+F "exclusive": Zero results.

CTRL+F "inclusive": Multiple results. They even define what "tax inclusive fair market value" is, since they refer to the concept so much in the text of the bill.

Yes, they define the "tax inclusive fair market value." However, nowhere does the bill say the 23% rate will be defined this way. The only line where the 23% rate is mentioned says this:

"(1) FOR 2015- In the calendar year 2015, the rate of tax is 23 percent of the gross payments for the taxable property or service."

That would be EXCLUSIVE, not inclusive, moron.

This thread illustrates the painfully large gap in intelligence and intellectual honesty between enlightened lybyryls like mysylf and backwards, uncivilized conservatards. Whereas I speak from a position of authority, given my research into the subject and use of primary source materials (which include things like the actual bill and don't include things like Sean Hannity psychobabble), conservatards can only foam at the mouth and parrot the same talking points their corporatist overlords taught them on the mind-rotting television they worship as their god--in between bouts of proclaiming "America's Christian heritage" and "In God We Trust".

True enough, it does illustrate the painfully large gap in intelligence and intellectual honesty between you and normal people. You have lied about what the bill says, plus you're too stupid to know it.

BTW. I'm an atheist, not a Christian, so your rant about Christians is a complete non sequitur. OH, and note how I used quotes from the actual bill that refer to the parts being discussed. You, on the other hand, quoted stuff that was irrelevant.

 

[bripat9643]

It appears this thread has already come to a timely end.

 

[LiberalMedia]

You really are one stupid ****. You don't even know what the "black market" is, do you? Here's a hint, it's not a grocery store where black people shop, you witless dung heap.

They're called African-Americans, bigot.

And of course I know what that term means. It's a racist euphemism used to refer to a place where stolen or illegal goods are sold, so named because African-Americans were alleged to be the sellers and main buyers at such places.

And you conservatards thought my degree in African-American History was useless. No, bigots, I'm wise to your discriminatory ways. I don't let even the most subtle racism slide.

There isn't the slightest thing racist about it, you witless ****. It's called "black" because it's hidden. It's in the dark. Economists have been using the term for centuries, and the still use it full view of hundreds of students in universities all over the country.

Economics is racist.

Is the term "black Friday" racist?

Extremely. African-American Friday is another part of racist lore, and refers to the day when prices are lowered so African-Americans, being poor, can afford to actually buy something rather than stealing it.

"In the black?"

A plain English translation: "Making money off of African-American slave labor, what a great thing!"

"black mark beside one's name?"

Why does the mark have to be African-American?

"black out?"

This refers to more racist folklore which held that, in the early days of electricity, African-Americans would attempt to break into any houses with electric lights, given that to afford such expensive new technology the (white) family inside must be rich. The full phrase was originally, "Shut the lights off, there's an African-American out on the loose!" This has, in present times, been shortened to the quick warning given from one racist to another, "African-American out!"

"black sheep in the family?"

The term "African-American sheep" refers to someone strange and different. It is racist to its very core, as it implies that there is something inherently wrong with being African-American.

"A black day?"

Another inherently racist term, as it implies that an "African-American day" is a bad or saddening one.

"The pot calling the kettle black?"

Again, this implies that African-American is a negative term. "The pot calling the kettle African-American" originated from a fairy tale created by racist whites, proud of their porcelain skin. In the story, a sentient porcelain pot calls a self-aware cast-iron kettle "African-American" as an insult, explaining that because it was a darker color than the pot, the kettle must do all of the work in boiling water for cooking.

It's hard to believe anyone could be as stupid as you.

Tragically, it's very easy to believe that there are, in fact, many people as racist as you are. Racists walk among us in our everyday lives, but I've become very adept at spotting and outing them. I'm a social justice warrior and I won't stop calling out bigots like you until the scourge of racism is finally eliminated in our society.

 

[bripat9643]

They're called African-Americans, bigot.

And of course I know what that term means. It's a racist euphemism used to refer to a place where stolen or illegal goods are sold, so named because African-Americans were alleged to be the sellers and main buyers at such places.

And you conservatards thought my degree in African-American History was useless. No, bigots, I'm wise to your discriminatory ways. I don't let even the most subtle racism slide.

There isn't the slightest thing racist about it, you witless ****. It's called "black" because it's hidden. It's in the dark. Economists have been using the term for centuries, and the still use it full view of hundreds of students in universities all over the country.

Economics is racist.



Extremely. African-American Friday is another part of racist lore, and refers to the day when prices are lowered so African-Americans, being poor, can afford to actually buy something rather than stealing it.



A plain English translation: "Making money off of African-American slave labor, what a great thing!"



Why does the mark have to be African-American?



This refers to more racist folklore which held that, in the early days of electricity, African-Americans would attempt to break into any houses with electric lights, given that to afford such expensive new technology the (white) family inside must be rich. The full phrase was originally, "Shut the lights off, there's an African-American out on the loose!" This has, in present times, been shortened to the quick warning given from one racist to another, "African-American out!"



The term "African-American sheep" refers to someone strange and different. It is racist to its very core, as it implies that there is something inherently wrong with being African-American.



Another inherently racist term, as it implies that an "African-American day" is a bad or saddening one.

"The pot calling the kettle black?"

Again, this implies that African-American is a negative term. "The pot calling the kettle African-American" originated from a fairy tale created by racist whites, proud of their porcelain skin. In the story, a sentient porcelain pot calls a self-aware cast-iron kettle "African-American" as an insult, explaining that because it was a darker color than the pot, the kettle must do all of the work in boiling water for cooking.

It's hard to believe anyone could be as stupid as you.

Tragically, it's very easy to believe that there are, in fact, many people as racist as you are. Racists walk among us in our everyday lives, but I've become very adept at spotting and outing them. I'm a social justice warrior and I won't stop calling out bigots like you until the scourge of racism is finally eliminated in our society.

Now I'm certain you're a right-winger pretending to be a liberal moron.

No one could be that stupid.

 

[whitehall]

Why do liberal elitists use insulting speech patterns to try to make an obscure political point? Because it's all the pathetic left wing has left?

 

[LiberalMedia]

Why do liberal elitists use insulting speech patterns to try to make an obscure political point? Because it's all the pathetic left wing has left?

Why do conservatards never address the actual substance of a thread? Because you know nothing about political topics and refuse to learn?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Another exceptional flawed argument and looney conclusion brought to us by consonant lady.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

State income taxes are based on Federal income tax returns. If no one has to file a federal income tax return, then what are states going to base their taxes on? Obviously, they'll have to rewrite their tax codes. Furthermore, if we repeal the 16th Amendment, then income taxes will no longer be allowed. Until the 16th was passed, the Constitution specifically prohibited the income tax.

Are you saying the Fair Tax legislation the 113th Congress introduced repeals Amendment XVI; the Income Tax?

 

[bripat9643]

State income taxes are based on Federal income tax returns. If no one has to file a federal income tax return, then what are states going to base their taxes on? Obviously, they'll have to rewrite their tax codes. Furthermore, if we repeal the 16th Amendment, then income taxes will no longer be allowed. Until the 16th was passed, the Constitution specifically prohibited the income tax.

Are you saying the Fair Tax legislation the 113th Congress introduced repeals Amendment XVI; the Income Tax?

No, it wouldn't. That would have to be done in a separate bill, but no conservative would vote to pass the FAIR tax unless repealing the 16th was done first.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

State income taxes are based on Federal income tax returns. If no one has to file a federal income tax return, then what are states going to base their taxes on? Obviously, they'll have to rewrite their tax codes. Furthermore, if we repeal the 16th Amendment, then income taxes will no longer be allowed. Until the 16th was passed, the Constitution specifically prohibited the income tax.

Are you saying the Fair Tax legislation the 113th Congress introduced repeals Amendment XVI; the Income Tax?

No, it wouldn't. That would have to be done in a separate bill, but no conservative would vote to pass the FAIR tax unless repealing the 16th was done first.

Thanks for the clarification. I've read the current bill, and it is a freakin' mess, repealing the 1986 tax code, and putting in place a consumption tax. Insanity! The 16th would still be there for some future cabal to reinstitute with a new tax code.

 

[blackhawk]

Does anyone think the OP has the slightest idea how childish and immature they sound?

 

[LiberalMedia]

State income taxes are based on Federal income tax returns. If no one has to file a federal income tax return, then what are states going to base their taxes on? Obviously, they'll have to rewrite their tax codes. Furthermore, if we repeal the 16th Amendment, then income taxes will no longer be allowed. Until the 16th was passed, the Constitution specifically prohibited the income tax.

Are you saying the Fair Tax legislation the 113th Congress introduced repeals Amendment XVI; the Income Tax?

No, it wouldn't. That would have to be done in a separate bill, but no conservative would vote to pass the FAIR tax unless repealing the 16th was done first.

You do, of course, realize that the Fair Tax Act repeals all federal income taxes, self-employment taxes, payroll taxes, estate taxes, gift taxes, alcohol taxes, and tobacco taxes, right? And that passage of the Fair Tax Act, while not removing the ability of Congress to re-institute all of those things, does in fact put the federal sales tax in place of them?

That goes to both bripat and ThoughtCrimes, by the way.

 

[bripat9643]

Are you saying the Fair Tax legislation the 113th Congress introduced repeals Amendment XVI; the Income Tax?

No, it wouldn't. That would have to be done in a separate bill, but no conservative would vote to pass the FAIR tax unless repealing the 16th was done first.

Thanks for the clarification. I've read the current bill, and it is a freakin' mess, repealing the 1986 tax code, and putting in place a consumption tax. Insanity! The 16th would still be there for some future cabal to reinstitute with a new tax code.

So long as the 16th is repealed, where's the "insanity?" It's much smarter to tax consumption that to tax earning. It's also far simpler. The FAIR tax would make all the special exemptions we have in the current code a lot more difficult.

 

[bripat9643]

Are you saying the Fair Tax legislation the 113th Congress introduced repeals Amendment XVI; the Income Tax?

No, it wouldn't. That would have to be done in a separate bill, but no conservative would vote to pass the FAIR tax unless repealing the 16th was done first.

You do, of course, realize that the Fair Tax Act repeals all federal income taxes, self-employment taxes, payroll taxes, estate taxes, gift taxes, alcohol taxes, and tobacco taxes, right? And that passage of the Fair Tax Act, while not removing the ability of Congress to re-institute all of those things, does in fact put the federal sales tax in place of them?

That goes to both bripat and ThoughtCrimes, by the way.

I wouldn't endorse the FAIR tax unless the 16th Amendment was repealed first.

 

[LiberalMedia]

No, it wouldn't. That would have to be done in a separate bill, but no conservative would vote to pass the FAIR tax unless repealing the 16th was done first.

You do, of course, realize that the Fair Tax Act repeals all federal income taxes, self-employment taxes, payroll taxes, estate taxes, gift taxes, alcohol taxes, and tobacco taxes, right? And that passage of the Fair Tax Act, while not removing the ability of Congress to re-institute all of those things, does in fact put the federal sales tax in place of them?

That goes to both bripat and ThoughtCrimes, by the way.

I wouldn't endorse the FAIR tax unless the 16th Amendment was repealed first.

Why not? Don't trust your duly-elected corporate shills to do the right thing?

 

[LiberalMedia]

No, it wouldn't. That would have to be done in a separate bill, but no conservative would vote to pass the FAIR tax unless repealing the 16th was done first.

Thanks for the clarification. I've read the current bill, and it is a freakin' mess, repealing the 1986 tax code, and putting in place a consumption tax. Insanity! The 16th would still be there for some future cabal to reinstitute with a new tax code.

So long as the 16th is repealed, where's the "insanity?" It's much smarter to tax consumption that to tax earning. It's also far simpler. The FAIR tax would make all the special exemptions we have in the current code a lot more difficult.

It would also make living a lot more difficult. The richest Americans got that way by moving enormous piles of money around via capital-intensive investments; as their piles of money accumulate more millions and billions, their consumption as a percentage of their income drops drastically. Do you truly believe it is fair to only tax based on consumption, and not ability to pay? Is such a massive spike in the cost of food, gasoline, and healthcare really the best option for funding the government?

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

No, it wouldn't. That would have to be done in a separate bill, but no conservative would vote to pass the FAIR tax unless repealing the 16th was done first.

Thanks for the clarification. I've read the current bill, and it is a freakin' mess, repealing the 1986 tax code, and putting in place a consumption tax. Insanity! The 16th would still be there for some future cabal to reinstitute with a new tax code.

So long as the 16th is repealed, where's the "insanity?" It's much smarter to tax consumption that to tax earning. It's also far simpler. The FAIR tax would make all the special exemptions we have in the current code a lot more difficult.

I don't think you fully understood what I wrote. I'll restate it:
If Amendment XVI is repealed and replaced in one stroke with proper legislation that could not be messed with to favor political cronies and produce the required Federal revenue, fine. Doing it piecemeal would require trust of those legislating, but who in their right mind has that much trust in either of the two corrupt major factions?

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Thanks for the clarification. I've read the current bill, and it is a freakin' mess, repealing the 1986 tax code, and putting in place a consumption tax. Insanity! The 16th would still be there for some future cabal to reinstitute with a new tax code.

So long as the 16th is repealed, where's the "insanity?" It's much smarter to tax consumption that to tax earning. It's also far simpler. The FAIR tax would make all the special exemptions we have in the current code a lot more difficult.

It would also make living a lot more difficult. The richest Americans got that way by moving enormous piles of money around via capital-intensive investments; as their piles of money accumulate more millions and billions, their consumption as a percentage of their income drops drastically. Do you truly believe it is fair to only tax based on consumption, and not ability to pay? Is such a massive spike in the cost of food, gasoline, and healthcare really the best option for funding the government?

The "equity quotient" is the issue with a consumption tax, you are correct. It would fall the heaviest on those who could least afford it. That is why it would likely be among the worst options; on par with the enumeration tax of old.

 

[CitizenSeven]

The only fair tax is a flat tax: whatever percent applied to gross, no deductions for anything.

So then you'll love it when you get a federal income tax levied at a flat rate of 100%, with no deductions, no credits, and no money in your pay checks, right?

That's actually not too far off from something I was thinking of. Great mynds think alike, fellow lybyryl.

Sure thing. I'd stop working, of course, as would every other rational person. We're getting ther with current tax rates, so why not embrace the inevitable in the People's Republic of America.