Boom!


That's... not quite correct, as it conflates several of a multitude of issues.

Corporations are legal "persons" (corpus). This means income is actually taxed a first time at the corporation's rates, and again a second time at the rates of the rest of the stakeholders (employee, creditor, lender, owner), hence double taxation. This is in contrast to other limited liability entities which are pass through (partnerships, S corps, LLCs not electing corporate tax treatment). And as much as big businesses dislike this, it's considered the price they pay for their traditional form of limited liability.

What your quote is describing is the passing on to the customer of increased expenses. If the cost of materials/goods increases, those get passed onto the buyer sooner or later. Passing on income taxes (or sales taxes, possibly others) to the customer is ILLEGAL. (It's a tax on income -- think about how that actually works. )

Corporations pay tax. But the rules against which they pay tax are not the same as the ones against which individuals pay (or partnerships, or non-profs). Corporations reduce their overall tax burden by: lowering their taxable income with deductions -- essentially that business expenses become another business's income and should not be taxed twice.. twice (a benefit that proponents argue is appropriate, and the Fair Tax does not eliminate but even expands), and by using methods like income-splitting.

The BIGGEST tax burden on working individuals is actually Social Security and Medicare. The masses are fooled into thinking it's not by the illusion that the employee and the employer (regardless of entity) split this cost between themselves. But if you understand the general concepts of accounting, the entire cost is really just born by the worker because it's mechanistically indistinguishable from you paying the full share yourself. Think about this one too: the "share" paid by your employer is still allocated to you and is money they can't pay you as actual salary. You just don't see the share your employer pays on your behalf each payday, but you don't get it all the same. (Even employers tend to oppose this tax because they know they could tempt you better with higher actual pay.)

And if you study the cash flow mechanics behind how SSI and Medicare work, ye'll realize those "your account has $X,XXX in it" that they write in all those SSI statements they send out are all fake accounting. Financially, the departments of the US federal gov that handle this have NO money, at least to back up all those "account numbers" they keep showing you. This is why you keep hearing about the debates of solvency issues.

Because the way this system was actually implemented is based entirely on ratio of working peeps to retirees. And the demographic shifts have made that go from about 15-to-1 (from when it was implemented in FDR's time) down to around 3-to-1 (maybe even lower now). And the Baby Boomer generation is going to be hitting retirement. We've only seen the early retirees so far -- sometime within the next 8 years, the first ones (born in '46, retiring at 65? 72?) will crush that ratio even further. And I'm not sure, but I suspect the Baby Boomers' generation actually outnumbers those of us in "Generation X".

It's essentially the largest, and longest running Ponzi scheme in history, spanning multiple generations with the beneficiaries of this forked system being all the prior retirees, old folks, and abusers of disability/workman's comp. So there's a LOT of political opposition to anyone screwing with the current system because all those old people worked, put in their fair share, and "they're gonna get what's coming to them, by golly".

*shrug* No matter how much I care about my parents and grandparents, sooner or later this whole mess is gonna explode and it won't even matter if I WANT to keep supporting them this way..

I feel smarter just for having read all that.

Are there any current proposals. for taxation and or the care of the elderly that you favor Glue? Or a plan of you're own devising?

Yeah, all that stuff about SocSec...

Sorry, I think I misstated this part. There are currently over 140 million returns filed in total. What the Fair Tax does is reduce the number of TOTAL returns filed to less than 20 million (according to estimates). Businesses will be required ONLY to file sales tax returns (as they already are) with their state's taxing authority. They will no longer be required to file federal employment tax returns. Individuals will not be required to file returns at all.

Less returns = more ability for scrutiny/review.

Buy virtue of the fact that large money wilding high profit entities wont be paying at all.

Can't scrutinize those who don't pay.

This would be true if state/federal revenue offices stayed staffed at the same levels...I doubt that those agencies would keep current levels of staffing if there were fewer returns.

Probably won't at the federal level, because the Fair Tax legislation pretty much abolishes the IRS at the same time.

State level - I don't know, maybe not. The state tax authority would still have to deal with collecting its own tax revenue (sales and income), which the Fair Tax does not change. They would also have the added responsibility of collecting the Fair Tax revenue, if they choose. The legislation provides for state tax agencies to be paid a one-quarter of one percent fee to collect the Fair Tax. States can either do the collecting on their own, sub-contract that collection out to another state or third-party, or opt to have the Federal government handle Fair Tax collection for them. Most states already collect their own sales tax revenue, this would just be tacked on to that and it would be advantageous to do so since they get paid the fee.

If it could actually be forced to happen, either the wealthy will find themselves a way out of the rules before long, or all the businesses will just move to China/Canada/Mexico while the rest of us say, "Okay... now what?"

On the other hand, any such a major transition would be likely to be mired down in logistics. Income tax is currently levied and enforced at the federal level. Sales taxes are done at the county level. And this makes sense because the populations of diff counties, much less states, are willing to pay different amounts which go to various local services.

While one ginormous super-aggregated sales tax to "rule them all" would certainly make everything transparent, even the state and county governments would oppose them. They don't want to turn that money over to the fed before getting their share, or even vice versa. And such a sudden realization at what taxes are really costing everyone (regardless of flat or county-specific), would likely come as such a shock to people there'd be mass heart attacks all around the country.


As for SSI/Medicare, that's a bit trickier. Solutions can't even begin to be explored without first determining the full extent of the problem, which requires having enough honesty to be willing to see the cold, brutal truth. It does concern income tax though, since that's where it comes from (although people refer to it as a "transfer payment", because it literally is robbing the middle class and giving to the retired class).

There are merits to proposals like privatized Social Security -- primarily, it's helps to seriously motivate the individual if they know they will have no safety net otherwise. The problem is that there is no safety net. On the flipside, SSI provides an safety net (however shotty), but loses the frantic motivation you get from knowing you're on your own. Of course, the conscientious among us and the late baby boomers know we're really pretty much on our own already.

I had a notion that I think could be applied to several systems that require modification. It's a sort of Semi-Privatization.

Instead of having the money controlled by individuals or Government agencies, you create a autonomous company which would be owned, but not operated by the government.

The idea being that the Government merely being owner would keep clear of politicizing the entity or clogging it up with inefficient bureaucracy, but since the ultimate goal of the company would be the proficient running of the system in the best interests of those who use it, as opposed to the profit of those who own and operate it, the entity would be disinclined to screw the users in the name of profit.

This is not always correct.

Louisiana has both a state (4%) and parish ("county" in the other 49) sales tax. Sellers have to file sales tax returns with both the LA Dept. of Revenue as well as each local tax jurisdiction. In our case, the LA Dept. of Revenue would be responsible for collecting the Fair Tax.

As I understand it, it doesn't matter WHO does the collecting of the Fair Tax, though, since the legislation allows states that don't have the infrastructre to collect a state-wide tax to sub-contract this collection out to another state.

The "fair" tax isn't even honest in it's portrayal.

For one thing it comes to a 30% percent taxation. Creative math aside the fact of the matter is you'd pay $30 tax on each $100 spent.

It also claims that it will collect the same amount of money as current taxes, but the math seems to indicate that what would be required is more like a 44% taxation. And that is assuming NO fraud or evasion.

It claims it won't hurt the poor by virtue of prebate checks to those below the poverty line, but what about those just above it or with unique expenses, such as medical needs? The disproportionate burden will hit the lower echelons of the "middle" class just as hard as the flat tax would, and the money for the prebates still has to come from somewhere, except now instead of coming from extra tax on wealthy, it will come disproportionately from the center.

It claims it's going to reduce or even eliminate the IRS, but who will will determine who gets a prebate and how will they track them with out yearly income statements. Who will ensure there is no fraud? How will we ensure that the wealthy do not abuse the now taxless status of their companies to make purchases, Who, indeed, would even have jurisdiction to audit these now non-taxable entities?

What about the retired, who owe no future income tax? Are they to be double taxed?

This isn't about fair taxation or economic stimulus, it's a plan to enhance the ability to horde cash. It's sweetened with the "You get to keep %100 percent of your check". But it's just a flat tax in a cheap tuxedo.

^I'm inclined to find myself having these same questions and thoughts.

The more I look at it, the Fair Tax plan seems full of problems, the most notable one being from here.




So, at the end of the day, my take home pay hasn't changed and even though prices on things have dropped, I'm being taxed 30% or more when I buy something...I'm either right back where I started economically - making the whole thing moot - or I'm spending more without an increase in my pay and I'm actually worse off than before.

if you haven't read the book, you don't have any basis for this.

creative math? 23% is 23% not 30.

where exactly does that come from?

no. the prebate is based on household size and income.

what do people pay in income tax now? between 20 and 30 percent mostly. you'd be paying the same. only now its only on new items that you buy. the lower class who pays lower income tax say 10% buys used clothes. no tax. used cars no tax. used homes no tax. and they keep the 10% now. if your against anyone being wealthy that's another discussion. but all of the questions you raised are answered in the book. its clear your against it, which is cool. I'm just saying all of this and the part i deleted is in the book.

Check it.

I've read several of the websites that promote it and derive my opinions from the stated position of it's proponents. I do not need to read EVERY conceivable page of it's propaganda to have an opinion on it's premises.




"There are three types of lies. Lies, damn lies, and statistics."

By altering the type of tax from "inclusive" to "exclusive" you can say that a tax that claims .30 cents of each spent dollar is a 23% tax on the total expendature, but .30 cents on the dollar goes to the Government. Which is precisely what fair tax legislation proposes.

You will pay $30 in tax on a $100 purchase under current fair tax proposals.

If you haven't realized this I suggest it is you, not I, that needs to read fair tax literature more carefully, though it goes to extremes to keep this fact under the radar.

I believe the fact that they use this deceptive tactic to hide the true cost to consumers justifies my charges of dishonest portrayal.




While I did see this number in several places, ( I saw one that claimed 82%) I have to admit it cited only the source "economists" as it origin. Though I didn't see fair tax proponents cite any source more reliable...

But, no, this is not my equation.



I'm not sure where you're getting that.

To my understanding it pays out 23% of the income of the poverty line income. (As defined by what I'm not sure.) Theoretically negating the 23% tax on purchases bringing the taxation of those below the poverty line to 0 ore less. However if you have to spend more or generate debt then you continue to pay the accelerated tax on that spending.



Used clothes? Tax Free? Thank you mas'er.

I think I'd be paying marginally more, many people would be paying crippling more, and the wealthy and their sources of wealth, will be getting a huge needless break.

"This won't affect the poor or the middle class..."

THEN WHAT'S IT FOR?!

Oh, right! THE RICH!

Got to be sure to be "fair" to those who don't need it with out regard to proportion. Right.

The poor don't pay more, Corporations pay nothing, and the rich pay less, but the money brought in is the same... Hmm... Where does money come from then... hmmm... Maybe THE REST OF US!?

I'm all for getting rich, but not at the expense of those in need and not ad infinitum.

It varies depending on state, but for an individual in a metropolitan California area, it's probably close to 45% if not more than 50. I'm assuming this "fair tax" essentially replaces all taxes being paid anywhere else for anything else. I already have an 8.25% sales tax in my county (and I think there may be an 8.5% county somewhere).

This can really be eyeballed by taking the ratio of: the number of days worked before so-called Tax Freedom Day (May 5th, I think), over the number of days after. That doesn't account for state income taxes, which vary. I suspect it may not even account for the employer's share of SSI/Medicare..

well all the class bashing and slavery implications aside. I am not wealthy or impoverished. I buy used clothes,used cars, used toys and I bought a used house. wouldve liked to save the tax on all and kept my check. if you always buy everything brand new I can understand where you might not want a tax like this. but please all the wealthy are not crooks any more than all of the poor are working the system to get shyt free. can you refrain from painting any group or person as evil based on your own bias long enough to actually discuss the topic? I mean really, at least if you make a joke make it funny and not directed to discredit the opposing debaters. (lesson learned from Hobbes).
but all of your posts are like "all the rich want to destroy the innocent middle class and kill all the poor people who can't help being poor cuz the rich take all their money." that's a bunch of rubbish. there are as many crooks in every class as any other. and all of that is irrelevant to the topic.

the fair tax would take the place of social security+income tax. what's that equal to on a weekly basis for most of america? well I'm in the middle class and its worth 30%+a couple hundred. also the couple hundred my employer pays on my behalf. then I'd only pay taxes on NEW items and services. plus I'd get the prebate to cover taxes on necessities.

I get to keep around 500 more dollars every check and with my current expenses, even at 44% I'd spend around an extra hundred.

hmmmmmm...get 500 more spend a hundred more...yea, I d be coming out 400 in the good. that's 10,000 a year I could invest into my kids future or my retirement.

oh yea, I'm for the fair tax.

now please no name calling or flame baiting. it really only decreases the possibility of civil debate. and if we're going to ignore stats because they are lies, then give me a tax reform that doesn't use stats as a basis for justifying itself.

But your salary would go down, so your take home pay wouldn't be any higher, so you'd have no extra money to save...I'm not trying to flame bait but did you read the links - or the even the section of the one link I posted in the thread?

Was there an argument in there beyond, It would be good for me?

If so I missed it, and feel welcome to move on beyond it dismissing it as selfish and unlikely to be true due to your seeming misunderstanding of the math behind the single most important tenant of the issue.

As for my perception of the rich as "evil based on" my "own bias", I do not think so of all the rich, merely the few who have paid for the publication of the literature that has bamboozled you.

I used myself as an example only. but I see you are a selfless person and only support laws beneficial to the common good. so I assume you don't keepextra money or own property since you give it all to charity which of course means that I'm bad for wanting a better life for myself and my family.

not sure tenant is the right word. but, the figures I saw from the opponents on the link don't take the soc security from the employer or employee into account.


fair enough.

btw I searched that link Hobbes but didn't see where my pay scale changes.im not saying its not there. just didn't see it. I did see where even the opponent Gale said its good for the long term economy though.

I quoted that part in the thread. Here, I'll do it again:

I didn't realize only Jesus could support tax policy that wasn't totally self interested...




OMG! I mistyped TWO LETTERS! The Fair Tax Works!

well i tried to keep this civil with minimal sarcasm, but since p-c apparently cant communicate without being disingenous and trying to overall be just a smartaleck to get reactionary posts out of others. i feel i must either oblige this childish behavior or ignore his posts on the matter. i choose to do both first one then the other.


is it totally self interested to want a better life for me and mine? well then, that means all the lower class you carry on your white horse of freedom sure are self interested. cuz they just want a better life right?



FYI i put that in as a courtesy, but you still avoided the point in favor of a one liner to keep the debate from being on point. way to go.


can we please just discuss this without anymore douchebaggery?

Yes, pay no attention to the nasty man...

It's not like your first post was condescending or hostile. Oops.

You've consistently ignored my actual arguments this whole thread. I don't think you answered a single one. Choosing instead to accuse me of not understanding the material, making fun of Math that YOU had wrong, and accusing me of baseless class prejudice.

ANYTHING but address the concerns BOTH Hobbes and I raised.

Avoiding the points raised in discussion, you then proceed to try to justify your position of pure self interest, then rankle at the accusation that your motivations are self interested. Accusing me of attacking you personally when you're argument is based on YOU.

You make a sarcastic crack about ME having to be a ludicrous philanthropist to justify my views, and then when I point out the silliness of the claim, you come back all indignant as if I had said it about YOU.

Then you have the gaul to try to pass off your own petty mockery of a grammatical error as a courtesy.

All the while trying to fob off your own impoliteness and avoidance of issues by finishing off your tangents and insults with "But let's not be immature."

You don't mind sarcasm, personal effrontery. You mind them coming back at you.

Now, why don't YOU try to get back on topic and actually answer some of the questions put to you, admitting your mathematical error (or deliberate misinformation), and taking responsibility for the views you expound?

Here's Neal Boortz's explanation of the "keep 100% of your paycheck

I ask that you read the whole explanation, but here's the "meat" of it


And something to keep in mind


This isn't just some hare-brained scheme, a lot of time, research and MONEY have gone into drafting HR 25. Please, READ the FAQ I have linked to before, or *gasp* maybe even buy the FairTax Book and FairTax: The Truth: Answering the Critics. (Or if you're a cheapskate like me, you can always head down to your local lie-berry.)

oh, no. i pointed out in my last post i will be using your tactics since that is the only way you seem to understand or communicate.

ive gone back and read my first post several times now, i still dont see any part of it thats hostile or condesending. certainly nothing garnering a reply implicating that i am advocating slavery.

i have not ignored a single argument. i simply referred you to the source material instead of trying to explain it here in detail. but for the sake of the math question.fair tax math

i used myself as an example because its the one i have. it wasnt because of my "pure self interest" it was the easiest example i had. i am in the middle class. i assumed most americans are in the same middle class but i forgot statistics are lies. so since i cant represent the middle class give me an example to use and i will be happy to. but realize all parties have some self interest. i am comfortable with the amount i live with and do not see it as a negative influence in my life. indeed one part of the American dream is to build a better life for yourself and your family, i want this as much as anyone. does that make me purely self interested? no. does it give me some self interest? yes. is that wrong? depends on your point of view. now you have generalized me as purely self interested and i have done the same to you as having no self interest. Titanium for tat. that really is irrelevant to the validity of the bill we are discussing.

if you cant accept that it was courtesy fine. next time i will surely just get off topic, ignore your point and make some ignorant claim like "OMG you mistyped 2 letters the fair tax works!"
but hey, heres the part you ignored in favor making that zinger.


the only person apparently bothered by sarcasm is you. since you finally, through my use of sarcasm, did something besides one liners.

hmm lets see. points answered, point of view explained, math link posted. yep, that covers it.

*offers Nomolos and P-C a set of matching e-chillpills*

*Accepts chill pill from some one prepared to discuss and who is knowledgeable on the topic.

*accets chillpill from someone willing to discuss and not be insulting even though I posted link.*

There's no new information there. You might get more money. You won't get less. You almost certainly will not be taking home what you gross, even though we make you think that when we say "100% of your paycheck."

And I'm still not satisfied with the numerous ways the rich can avoid paying under the plan.

Can you lay those out for me, specifically?

I mean, I've heard you and P-C and maybe Glue say "I just see all kinds of ways the rich can avoid paying taxes," but I can't recall any examples other than they hypothetical "Set up a phantom company and say its a business-related purchase."

The Fair Tax is set up so that the end-user is the one paying the tax. The only way to NOT pay sales tax on an item is if the tax has already been paid (used items, etc.) or if you are purchasing an item for the express reason that it is needed for the production of goods and services. If you choose the latter option, the onus is on you (or the business) to prove that it is a business-to-business purchase and if you are unable to do so you are liable for the tax as well as interest and penalties. Couple that with the fact that there will be less stuff to audit, and your chances of getting around it are not good.

Sure.


First of all, I think this is more of a reality than you give it credit for. And with the plan to do away with the IRS, I'm confused as to how you become likely to get caught. Regardless, I think this one is a biggie.

A second issue for me is the notion that the wealthiest Americans will not spend a proportionate amount of their income in a way to offset what they pay in income tax. Wealthy people are usually wealthy because they don't spend their own money. They save it. The biggest luxuries, like private jets, personal drivers, or extravagant meals are easily defensible as business expenses, and are usually paid for by the corporation, as opposed to coming out of the pocket of the rich man himself.

If Richard Mann makes 20 million a year, he could easily spend only five or so and live an extremely extravagant life style. That's 15 million untaxable dollars sitting in a bank and collecting interest. Who makes up the difference in what could have been the income tax on 15 mil going to the government? People who don't have companies to buy them things. The people who can't live well spending only a quarter of their income like Mr. Mann can.

Finally, the rich are more likely to spend their money outside the US because they can afford to travel - a practice that I have to imagine will only increase under the fair tax. Want a new Italian sports car? Just buy it directly from Italy and have it shipped over. Tax free.

I am checking in to your other concerns, but I think I can address this one. Imported goods sold in the U.S. are subject to the Fair Tax. US Customs handles collecting the tax on imported goods. To get around it, you'd have to buy that new Maserati in Italy and ship it over in a container labeled "Olives." Of course, you'd have to hope the container doesn't get inspected. And then when you try to get get your tax, title, license, registration and fuzzy dice, the jig is up. OR you could ship it over privately and try to get around it that way, but then it might be cheaper to just go ahead and buy that new Maz at a US dealer.

See that's such a cop out. Fair Tax propaganda has all these numbers that are obviously ment to convey untruths. If 30% of the money I pay for an item goes to the government, I've paid 30% tax. If you I get to "keep 100% of YOUR paycheck" that implies YOUR check IE the one you get now, not a theoretical reduced check. That would be more like "Keep 80% of your check".

These tactics of terminology are dishonest and deliberate on the part of the fair tax propagandists. If this tax is so spiffy, why obfuscate the truth?

Not to mention I can see companies cutting wages due to the tax change, but I wouldn't hold my breath for these big price drops or extra jobs, especially in larger companies. More likely I think the extra cash is gonna go to profit and expansion of the company which is still more likely to be outside the US. Unless you think this tax benefit is really going to be more lucrative than other countries where there is no minimum wage and the taxes were friendly to begin with.






Yeah, this boat metaphor remindes me of another economic theory involving water. Would that boat lifting be acchived by the money "Trickling Down"? Oh yeah... that's gonna work.




Exactly. People with money who don't want to pay tax PAY for investigation into tax practice and, lo and behold, they get a report justifying that desire! What a Shock!

Books published by a similar method are suspect places to go looking for objective information on the subject.


A note on posting order and quotes. I thought I posted this about an hour ago but was greeted upon my return to my computer that it would not allow me to post it due to uneven quote numbers.

I never really figured out what the quote problem was so if this is a little wonky I apologize.

Or be a licensed dealer of Maseratis. Or have a licensed Maserati dealer friend shipping it for you. Hypothetically: you're a man who can afford a car that costs 250,000, meaning you have pull. What would you do to get out of paying 75,000 in taxes on it?

Trying to charge 30% tax on big ticket items like this will create a "tax free" black market, I promise you.

It abolishes the IRS because Fair Tax legislation will require state taxation authorities to collect the tax. These would be responsible for handling audits as well. They would also have a reduced workload (since it reduces the number of returns filed by about 90%) which opens up what tax returns that ARE filed to increased scrutiny.

Not ALL business purchases are exempt. Only business-to-business purchases for the express reason of the production of goods and services are exempt. A Learjet for your buddy to ride around would not fall under this category. Neither would personal drivers or private meals. If Restaurant A buys fish from Supplier B so that it can cook and serve the fish to Customer C, Restaurant A does not pay sales tax on the fish, Customer C does. If Customer C brings Client D to Restaurant A and buys the fish so that Client D will do business with him, this is not "production of goods and services" related, and so Mr. Big Shot Customer C gets to pay tax on the fish.

Again, the onus is on Customer C to provide proof that items he did not pay taxes on were legitmate, and if he is unable to do so, he gets to pay tax on it, as well as penalties and interest. That coupled with the fact that he is more likely to get caught makes this a bad risk to take. He will have to pay the sales tax on it at the time of purchase. If Customer C decided to make that purchase tax exempt, he would have to take a credit against the monthly sales tax return he files with his local taxing authority (he MUST do this to be able to have exempt purchases in the first place). Even if he goes through all the trouble to jump that hurdle, and his Corporate accountants allow him to do so, he more than likely will have to answer for it because of the increased risk of an audit.

Though I am not satisfied with the evasion opportunities, I think it's but many functional issues that are lacking.

The point is that the rich need not evade tax to benefit inordinately. For one thing, the upper end of the financial spectrum is who the tax is more "fair" too.

No matter how you cut it, the higher you go the more "fair" this law is to you.

The higher up the spectrum of wealth you get the less likely you are to be spending anything even close to your income. Yes rich people spend more, but not proportionally to their income.

Plus the wealthy will be the principal benefactor's of the lack of corporate taxation. I believe contrary to the prophetic cllaims of fair tax propaganda, that these companies will pay them selves first and lower prices and raise wages only when the market forces them too.

Seems to me the plan is toCut wages, at best level personal tax (though I do not belive this to be the case for most people, and free business from taxation. IN order to make all taxation "even."

Then once business has reaped the HUGE benefit of all this, they'll pay us back through lower prices and more jobs, instead of dumping the cash in their share holders bank accounts tax free, and investing in the still cheaper manufacturing to be had overseas.

You'll have to forgive me if I'm underwhelmed.

To support this claim, we have literature and research paid for by... Oh, Look, the principal beneficiaries of the plan! Another big surprise.

But Hobbes, in order to legally drive the vehicle in the United States, and to carry insurance on that vehicle, you have to have registration on the vehicle. In order to have the registration, you have to pay taxes on the vehicle to the Department of Motor Vehicles. Regardless of what that guy tries to do to import that car, as soon as he tries to get a valid registration for that vehicle and they notice that it is 1) a NEW vehicle and 2) NO taxes have been paid on it...



Unless you're talking about a rich guy driving around in an illegal $250,000 car sans insurance. If that is the case, you said rich people get rich because they are frugal, let me counter with rich people get rich because they are not stupid. In any event, it may still happen, but not in an significant amount.

In any event, the ONLY way for that rich guy to get out of paying taxes on the vehicle is by saying it is a purchase for the production of goods and services (which, even if he were a Maseratti DEALER and he were buying this vehicle and saying it was so he could use it to push his business, I'm not sure this would pass scrutiny). He, or more correctly, the dealership he owns, STILL has to pay the sales tax on the vehicle and takes a credit for it against his monthly sales return. If he is audited and it is found that the purchase did not fall under the tax-exempt category, he's liable.

Now, I'm not saying that some people won't get around it. Sure there is probably some Columbian drug kingpin will probably have his Lamborghini smuggled in on a boat in the dead of night and he'll drive it around without registration, insurance, fake tags, etc. But your average everyday rich guy is going to see that this is not worth the risk.

So, to keep the car example going, if you were to walk into a car dealer and get a new car you would get a paper saying taxes have been paid which would have to be shown to someone in order to get insurance (and registration and all that other stuff)?

What about smaller items like, say toothpaste or printer cartridges? How would those be policed? What would stop a person from selling new stuff from the back of his car without taxes?

This is silly. Of course they paid for the research, they're the ones pushing the legislation! That is, unfortunately, the way it works.

If you can show me a group opposed to the Fair Tax that has spent a comparable amount of money on research, I'm more than willing to listen to their criticisms.

If you are unwilling to listen to arguments from the folks supporting the Fair Tax, then I guess I can't really have a conversation with you about it.

Which makes me sad.



Uhhh? The law? He'd have to steal the stuff to be able to sell it out of the back of his van?

I mean, that's kind of like asking "What's stopping someone from walking in to Wal-Mart and walking out with a brand new Transformer without paying for it?"

Well, ok, let me give an example. Some of the second hand record places around here occasionally get new music in for sale. What would be the process for ensuring that the owner of the store didn't "forget" to add the sales tax to those CD's and not the other ones?

I'm merely raising the point. I think not considering the source of information is silly. I also think research that has a pre-set goal beyond the objective investigation itself is inherently suspect. I don't see what's silly about that.

That's just the way it works? Claiming that the "Money Talks" system of mass media and governmental corruption in anyway justify it's own self supportive findings is, in my eyes, a self defeating statement.

Asking for research of comparable cost is unproductive. Cost is not Credibility. You could spend a billion dollars researching the non-existence of penguins and produce a mountain of published literature, but paying a grad student $20 to go visit the zoo and write a paragraph essay would refute all of it.

I am in fact reading your suggested pages, as well as refuting texts. I, at this time, have no intention of spending my sadly limited reading time on a whole book on this subject because I have seen no evidence to compel me to. If I did choose to read a book on the subject I would avoid ones published by those that professed to be on either side.

Hmmm, that's a good question that I don't know the answer to. I'm assuming that these second-hand stores would still be buying their new music from a supplier.
1) They pay the sales tax to the supplier, but since it is would qualify as a tax exempt purchase, they will take a credit against their monthly sales tax return. (Remember, they will have to be a Registered Seller with their local tax authority to be able to claim a credit.)
2) The sales tax return they file shows that they purchased "X" dollars in new music from a supplier, and paid "Y" in sales tax to the supplier, and are simultaneously claiming a credit equal to "Y" on their monthly sales tax return, showing that, to date, the store with zero tax liability.

If, at any point, the store is audited and it is shown that it sold the new items and did not collect sales tax on those items, the store would be responsible for the taxes and have to pay out of pocket. Therefore, it would be in their best interest to ensure that they collect sales tax on new items.

Now, if the store is a second-hand music store and doesn't want to deal with all that crap, they either stick to selling used records, or purchasing new music from a supplier, paying sales tax on it, but being unable to recoup that cost by claiming a credit for it. Or they can purchase the new music and roll the cost of the sales tax into the purchase price for the buyer, at which point it becomes "used" music anyway.

My experience as a manager in retail tells me that between having multiple suppliers and transferring inventory between chain locations and "damaged" or "stolen" goods these audits on smaller ticket items would be almost impossible to perform with any accuracy.

Accepted.

I'd just ask, what do you perceive is their "pre-set goal" other than the passage of legislation providing us with an alternative to our current tax system, which they (and I) see as unfair. I don't see a bunch of corporate fatcats who want to line their own pockets behind their backs pulling the strings. They've repeatedly said that it doesn't directly make anyone richer, but it goes a long way towards getting our country back on track economically, and I see nothing intrinsically evil 'bout 'dat.

Ok, it’s called the Fair Tax because it taxes thos