Fair Tax debate ONLY

[David88vert]

All of our Presidents, good and bad, NEVER had "experience" at being "President" before they got elected into office, right?

My point is that some of the most brilliant minds evolve out of experience rather than book smarts. Boortz may not be the most likeable person around, but he is not dumb. Neither is John Linder.

I never said they were dumb, just digging in to see how you dealt with the question. Basically, you have made up your mind already, and are not going to listen to anyone else's point of view - even if that is what they do for a living and are trained. You will choose to side with advice from someone who has no economic training, not buiness experience, just because it supports your position. Is that correct? It's not a problem, as it is your opinion and you are entitled to any opinion you choose, of course.

The politicians and accountants that are so against this move are doing so, not because they are economists or brilliant Harvard School of Business Magna Cum Laudes....it is because they see THEIR jobs being no longer needed and/or as important as before. See, politics revolve around power and money. Fillibustering things forever assures politicians job security. Same thing goes for the IRS. The more difficult and ambiguous they make the tax laws, the longer they get to keep their jobs because that keeps US all tangled up in junk for years to come. If you propose to totally shut down the IRS, just WHO do you think is immediately going to complain? The IRS and the GOV'T that feeds off the money collected by the IRS.

So again, as I've said before, so called economists are going to dig and dig until they find their smoking gun to rationalize this as a bad idea. Well, it's the best idea anyone has proposed since the IRS's conception.

Fair Tax does not abolish the IRS or income tax. Please read the actual proposal and not just the website.
Economists would not be out of a job, they would actually have more work on their hands workign out the new details that have been left out. There is always something new, you know that.

How do you figure anyone that uses a fake SS# is "paying in"? Yes, I do acknowledge that there are quite a few illegals that are W-2'd, but an overwhelming MAJORITY do not get W-2'd at all. That majority far outweighs the few that leave a meager few bucks they may take from his/her check. Comparatively speaking it's not even a contest.

Day labors that are paid cash don't pay in; however, those working for a business do. Since they are illegal, they do not have SSN#'s, so they use a fake. They pay income tax currently. I personally know of several companies that do this, and the majority of construction companies do. It has become common practice over the past 15 years. Come down on Buford Hwy, and I can show you.
The IRS created a nine-digit Individual Tax Identification Number in 1996 for foreigners who don’t have Social Security numbers but need to file taxes in the U.S. But it is increasingly used by undocumented workers to file taxes, apply for credit, get bank accounts or even buy a home. The IRS issued 1.5 million ITINs in 2006 — a 30 percent increase from the previous year. All told, the tax liability of ITIN filers between 1996 and 2003 was $50 billion. The agency has no way to track how many were immigrants, but it’s widely believed most people using ITINS are in the United States illegally. One number hints at the number of illegal immigrants having income taxes deducted from their paychecks. In 2004, the IRS got 7.9 million W-2s with names that didn’t match a Social Security Number. More than half were from California, Texas, Florida and Illinois, states with large immigrant populations, leading experts to believe they likely represent the wages of illegal immigrants. Even immigrants who use ITINs to file taxes are forced to make up a Social Security Number when they get a job.

The Center for Immigration Studies says that 10-11 million illegal aliens present in the U.S. The US Border Patrol estimates 12-15 million.

Do you have anything to back up your assertation that the MAJORITY does not get W2'ed? Any proof at all, or is that your "common sense" answer?

Yes it most certainly would be taxed. The difference is that it would be taxed up front when that illegal buys necessities such as food, clothes, and essentials. He/she would not receive the "rebate" for those essentials, like you or I would, because they are in fact illegally here. So, when they went to the store to buy something the money they use to pay with would be turned into tax dollars that otherwise they would have NEVER BEFORE paid at all.

That is only true for the day laborers, not those already paying income tax, but it is still significant.

See, people don't realize just how many BILLIONS of dollars illegals earn every year that goes totally unreported and then shipped out, never to contribute to OUR LOCAL economy. To get an idea of just how much money goes out....take a look around next time you are driving around in just about any town U.S.A. Notice just how many Check Cashing places also have under the same roof a Western Union. Think about why that is. Think about how much business there must be for these types of businesses to be popping up in just about every street corner all the time. Why do you think that is? Because there is that much demand for them is the reason. Why is there demand? Because there really is that much money being made "under the table" each and every day. That money NEVER gets paid INTO any tax table, except for sales taxes since EVERYONE has to buy something at sometime.

I do know. I gave you the figure $18 billion last year.

No, I know I'm right about this. Corporations are focused on one thing and one thing FIRST before anything else....PROFITS. Why do you think it costs your employer $9k as opposed to $700/mo? It's not just about cheap labor, it's also about cheap costs. In India, they don't have income taxes, corporate taxes, or anything resembling our antiquated tax code. So your $700/mo employees don't have to have FICA, unemployment, disability, nor are they W2'd. Add in all those costs, and then that $700/mo is no longer $700/mo to the EMPLOYER. Yes, going to other countries makes sense to big corporations due to cheap labor. But an even bigger reason for big corporations to be based overseas are TAX shelters. Companies have to PAY taxes on everything they make. Why do you think they "sponsor" this for a gazillion dollars or buy Leer Jets for themselves to go to meetings? Because they either spend that money on stupid crap like that or they PAY taxes on that same money. Which do you think they choose to do with it? Once again, money that is not always benefiting our local economy.

Companies do care about the bottom line. I know from experience that if I didn't have to pay all the employment taxes that I've had to over the years, I'd certainly have a good chunk of change in the bank.

The real reason is the standard of living and the average wage is much cheaper, plus their is an ample supply of labor over there. People will work much cheaper in India. They live much cheaper, and they have a lower standard of living. There are no minimum wages. People are paid what the market will bear. Taxes are a tiny slice of the pie, except in where you HQs are located. I know this very well. If you worked in a major corporation in a position similar to mine, you would see that as well.

In reality, getting rid of unions and their costs appears to be a more relaistic answer than taxes. Even though only 8 percent of U.S. workers in the private sector belong to unions, 29 percent of production shifts out of the United States are from unionized facilities, including 44 percent of firms moving jobs from the United States to Mexico and 29 percent of firms moving jobs to China. This is a notable jump from 2001, when only 14 percent of companies moving to China, and 26 percent of those shifting production to Mexico were unionized. 17% of production shifts to other Latin American countries and 15% of production shifts to other Asian countries were in unionized workplaces. Only those moving to Inida (7%) were close to the national average.
Overall, 39 percent of all jobs leaving the United States are union.

It will never happen. It hasn't happened in the history of this country, and it's never going to.

Without spending reduction, nothing else matters. We are not improving the situation.

You keep using that line, "wealth distribution". How is a flat tax for EVERYONE that is exactly ...

A prebate is welfare for the masses.
"The FairTax is progressive. What could possibly be fair about a progressive tax where some people have to pay a higher percentage than others merely because they are deemed to be "rich"? How is the FairTax progressive? I thought it was a flat 23 percent on all new goods and services? It is and it isn't. Under the FairTax plan, everyone pays the 23 percent tax on everything, but "every household receives a rebate that is equal to the FairTax paid on essential goods and services." The rebate is given out each month, and is based on family size and the poverty level. But like the current tax code, the FairTax can also function as a tool for income redistribution because "the poor [will] actually pay less than zero-percent retail sales tax on their spending. Much like with the earned income tax credit of today, the rebate may give them more money than they actually spend on retail taxes." - Vance

He explains it pretty well, don't you think?

Here is another point:
The claim that the IRS will be eliminated under the FairTax is bogus. Although the national sales tax will be collected by the states from retailers, it is still a national sales tax, and as such, its collection will have to be overseen by some agency of the federal government. Just because the bureaucracy will no longer be called the IRS doesn't mean that it will be eliminated. According to The Fair Tax Act of 2005:

"There shall be in the Department of the Treasury a Sales Tax Bureau to administer the national sales tax in those States where it is required pursuant to section 404, and to discharge other Federal duties and powers relating to the national sales tax (including those required by sections 402, 403, and 405). The Office of Revenue Allocation shall be within the Sales Tax Bureau."

Title II, chapter six, section 603 of The Fair Tax Act sets up the Problem Resolution Office and authorizes "problem resolution officers." There will still be tax courts according to title II, chapter six, section 602 and chapter nine, section 7451. Changing the phrase "Internal Revenue Service" to "Department of the Treasury" and "Commissioner of Internal Revenue" to "Secretary" doesn't eliminate the federal bureaucracy.


With the FairTax, the federal government will also be a tax collector in a new way: at the post office. There is no exemption of postal goods and services mentioned anywhere in the Fair Tax Act of 2005. I suppose this means that stamps, P.O. Box rental services, and package mailing services will be subject to the new 23 percent tax. No list of taxes that are supposed to be eliminated under the FairTax includes the federal gas tax or the special taxes that exist on hotel rooms in most areas of the country.