Rush Limbaugh is not my Savior, and Neil Boortz isn’t my financial planner.
Open Thread.
Fresh Political Pickins From The Peach State
by Icarus on June 19, 2009
Rush Limbaugh is not my Savior, and Neil Boortz isn’t my financial planner.
Open Thread.
Copyright © 2010 Tanalach Media, LLC - All rights reserved. Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, and Copyright
{ 272 comments }
← Previous Comments
As for another thing that would move offshore, consider entertainment and communications. Sirrius/XM has vast capabilities to beam digital content to homes. It is borderless.
That is the real irony. Broadcast radio would simply vanish.
Boortz no longer needs the money, anyhow.
ecwoodrow
Onnce again!
The real plan is close to a 44% point of sales tax with the IRS all over hurting small business and driving a huge black market! That does not include the cost of needing a larger IRS or lack of payments via fraud!
…First, the 23 percent figure is disingenuous. If the current price of a widget is $1, a 30-cent sales tax would be added at the register under the FairTax. Because 30 cents is 23 percent of $1.30, backers of the tax claim that the tax rate is 23 percent. In addition, to make the claim that the tax would bring the same amount of money into the Treasury, FairTax proponents assume that the government is paying tax to itself on its purchases.
The Presidents’ Advisory Panel on Tax Reform — that’s President Bush’s tax panel — calculated that the rate would have to be at least 34 percent, not 30 percent, “and likely higher over time if the base erodes, creating incentives for significant tax evasion.” Brookings Institution economist William Gale puts the rate at 44 percent — and his calculation doesn’t take into account cheating, for which there would be ample incentive.
Furthermore, the 30 percent rate assumes that the tax would be imposed on a broad range of goods and services that has no precedent — putting a hefty and politically implausible extra tax bite on purchases of new homes, rent, food, health insurance, medical care and mortgage interest. ….
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/30/AR2007123001909.html
sorry
Once again!
Sorry, I thought you were talking about a foreign entity operating on a foreign shore, not a foreign entity operating within the US. In the case of a foreign entity operating in the US, they are considered a 103(a).
To your original point, why would a foreign 103(a) not collect? Even if it didn’t, a 103(a) not collecting the tax from the purchaser does not make the purchaser a 103(b)(1). It’s still the responsibility of the 103(a) to remit the tax.
Their is a provision for these:
These will still have to pay the tax, or not be allowed to do business in the US.
This assumes that their is no embedded taxes in the current system that will be removed under the FT. I think the FT economists assume that the embedded costs of medical care are around 26% (inc).
I hadn’t heard that, do you have a link available?
But the current bill still specifies the tax as 23% for the first year.
I think that’s a somewhat valid criticism. What do you think the evasion rate would be?
So why don’t they do that now to avoid the income tax?
Serrius/XM has never come close to making a profit. Thus, no income taxes to speak of.
John, can you provide me a link to Mr. Gale’s study that found that the rate need’s to be 44%?
Perhaps we should leave the black market/fraud stuff for next week if Icarus is going to devote the FT Friday thread to it?
Linder even admitted on C-span that the Fair Tax needed to be more. BTW the more you raise the tax you will see less purchases. Beyond the fact your embedded tax math does not add up human behavior alone of seeing a tax in the range of 40 to 50% when you add in local taxes will hurt point of sale purchases ie cigarette tax.
These will still have to pay the tax, or not be allowed to do business in the US.
In an internet age, how are they going to do this?
How is this different, or more effective, than Georgia claiming that a SC vendor must be registered to sell within the state, the vendors doing it anyway, and Georgia being powerless, short of auditing individuals, to stop it?
How is the US government going to tax programming beamed by satellite and collected by a charge card issued in Barbados?
The only thing stopping the states right now from auditing for sales tax is the single digit rate. Make it 44% and watch out!!!!
This assumes that their is no embedded taxes in the current system that will be removed under the FT. I think the FT economists assume that the embedded costs of medical care are around 26% (inc).
The savings from medical tourism are greater than the embedded taxes, a situtation that will be ruinous for any provider. In a land beset by 44% combined tax rates on everything a consumer buys, every dollar of net savings from using imports is leveraged ANOTHER 44%!!!!!
I hadn’t heard that, do you have a link available?
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=190365-1
You will have to order the video, as I did.
Even so even the FTorg calculates that the rate would have to be 24%, 31% exclusive….
http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/Tax%20Notes%20article%20on%20FT%20rate.pdf
What do you think the evasion rate would be?
At least as high as with a 44% income tax rate….
So why don’t they do that now to avoid the income tax?
Icarus handled that well.
When they get a FREE 44% competitive price advantage, why would they stay here and suffer along with AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast?
ecwoog
This does a great job explaining the fantasy math used by the Fai Tax supporters. They are using assumptions that any rational person could see is not real!
….Americans for Fair Taxation, however, has complained that H.R. 25 calls for a 23 percent inclusive (or 30 percent exclusive) rate, not a 34 percent rate. Our number came from the President’s Advisory Panel on Tax Reform (scroll to chapter 9 for the panel’s discussion of the FairTax), which calculated that a 34 percent rate on the actual price of consumer goods would be necessary to make the program revenue-neutral. Americans for Fair Taxation has said that the Advisory Panel did not use the FairTax as detailed in the legislation but instead made up its own plan. This complaint is disingenuous. The Advisory Panel did in fact begin with the 30 percent figure that proponents of the FairTax submitted. But the panel rejected those figures, claiming that they were based, at least in part, on the unrealistic assumption that there would be full compliance with the FairTax. In other words, proponents assume that no one will cheat on taxes. However, the Treasury Department estimates that the evasion rate for the entire U.S. tax system under current law is approximately 15 percent. The Advisory Panel accordingly assumed a 15 percent evasion rate for the FairTax.
More significantly, however, the panel found that FairTax supporters were employing questionable accounting. In calculating federal revenue, proponents assumed that purchases made by the federal government would be taxed at the full 30 percent rate. But when calculating federal expenditures, FairTax proponents did not factor in the additional costs of the 30 percent sales tax. The Advisory Panel thus threw out the revenue from federal purchases, noting (correctly) that increased revenue from taxing federal purchases is exactly canceled by increased costs in the federal budget. Unfortunately, the Advisory Panel has thus far refused to release its methodology, making it difficult to reconcile its projections with those of Americans for Fair Taxation.
Using a formula that corrects for the faulty assumption about government spending, William Gale, director of the economic studies program at the Brookings Institute, calculates that a 39.3 percent exclusive rate would be necessary for revenue neutrality. (We used the lower Advisory Panel number). A more recent study by FairTax supporter and Boston University economist Laurence Kotlikoff – working from Gale’s formula and adopting the same basic assumptions – determines that a 31.2 percent exclusive (or 23.8 percent tax-inclusive) rate would be sufficient.
Even if Kotlikoff is correct that a 31.2 percent rate is revenue-neutral, there remains some reason to doubt that the rate actually would be that low. The FairTax proposal assumes a 100 percent tax base on consumption. By way of contrast, most states that have sales taxes have roughly a 50 percent tax base. With the FairTax’s 100 percent base, consumers would pay taxes on a great many things that may not intuitively seem like consumption. The list would include:
Purchases of new homes
Rent
Interest on credit cards, mortgages and car loans
Doctor bills
Utilities
Gasoline (30 percent in addition to current taxes, which would not be repealed)
Legal fees
At today’s prices, gasoline would cost almost $1 per gallon more. A $150,000 new home would run $195,000 – plus the 30 percent tax that the buyer would pay on the interest on the mortgage. In short, the FairTax taxes everything that one buys, with the one notable exception of education. Any exceptions to the tax base (for instance, eliminating rent or credit card interest from the tax base) would require an offsetting increase in the rate…..
http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.html
Hey Konop,
I just realized that the PCE, based upon NIPA data, used for the base DOESN’T eliminate the “embedded” US and state income taxes from the base.
This probably is yet another case of that one FTax ‘expert’ figuring that the embedded taxes REMAIN, when that other one claims that they go away and are, thus, savings to the taxpayer.
That is what tripped up Boortz. He continues to blatantly lie by saying you get 100% of your paycheck and saying that there are 26% in tax savings, even though a big part of the savings are in your paycheck.
Poor fools, their math doesn’t work YET AGAIN.
Indy
Great point!!!!
ecwoodrow
Please help us understand why you think Linder is right?
[3]Rep Linder’s tax rate also assumes there would be no tax avoidance or evasion, even though most serious analysts think the underground economy would thrive under the sales tax. Allowing for just half as much evasion as exists under the income tax would raise the required sales tax rate to above 50 percent.
Konop -
When this thing passes, we need to buy Mexican trucking companies and set up fueling stations on Indian reservations.
Shoot, we need to find some American Indians to partner with.
Can you IMAGINE the riches to be had by having internal safe havens from a 44% sales tax?
Great idea I could raise money on that concept! We just need a parade of fools to push the Fair Tax!
Forget that. How about computer application development. When you bil
kl some client at $100/hr, that sale tax adds up quickly. You can do that from anywhere.Business clients would be exempt.
Are Ebay sellers going to be ‘businesses?’
I predict YES.
It’s Monday evening, Time to end this thread and rest up for this Friday’s Fair Tax post. You don’t want to reveal everything you know.
Hey, On Friday, Boortz needs to read.
Friday we talk about he is going to beg for an exemption.
ecw,
C-Span now has a link to watch via a flash player.
at 20:48 Linder says that Global Insights has rescored the FT, taking into account the criticisms, and that the rate is “coming in at 24 to 26%.
26% is 34%, tax exclusive
Indy and John
Are you on Facebook?
Look me up – Kellie.weeks or Kellie White Weeks
Anyone else on here that is not on my “friends list” yet is welcome to look me up too, liberal or conservative – I don’t care.
I am not on facebook. You are making me feel old. I really do need to do it. But hey your comments are worth the read on PP! And if you and you’re your husband are ever in Cherokee please look us up for a nice bottle of wine.
Your never too old. I’m about to be 40 and I thought the same thing but I’ve reconnected with old friends and made new “old” friends. My dad is on there now which means it is no longer cool because he’ll be 70 soon.
It’s actually fun to read what people are up to and to post on there.
Kellie:
Not yet. I am moving that way, though.
I may soon start my career as a FairTax promoter, then I will be everywhere!
I think every IRS agent and tax accountant needs to join FairTax.org.
What a concept!
In that case you’ll have to be a Twit too.
I don’t do twitter but I think Erick and Icarus do. They are on FB too.
Although I prefer for people to post under their real name.
You can even keep your name.
I think Kellie has a new crush
A new one? HA! I have a list of them. LOL
I do not twit.
Erick does, and occasionally his involve farm animals.
I thought you were a new media DB. Or was that your alter ego, Chris Farris?
ecwoodrow
We gave you the facts and no response at all. Should we assume you have seen the light that the Fair Tax is a bad joke?
JK,
Isn’t it funny how Republican philosophy has been “If you tax something at high rates, you are going to get a lot less of it.” is cavalierly tossed aside by Republican candidates wanting to put a combined 44% tax on everything you buy?.
Then they assume that taxable sales are going to stay at the same level as before they hammered the economy with their tax!
That did not work well for Max Burns or even Jim DeMint. The later is probably the only true Republican left in the South, but his closer encounter with defeat after Inez Tennenbaum started running against the FT resulted in his endorsing an alternative national sales tax plan.
Maybe Republican candidates can spew this nonsense to talk-radio-zombie listeners, but they cut and run in a campaign against Democrats or Indies.
If prices EXPLODE from all of the $tens of trillions government is trying to create price inflation with, does it really make sense to reward government with a 44% tax that goes up in lockstep with their monetary mayhem?
It reminds of this song!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIsou0IRIQU
Only two more days until Fair Tax Friday again!!! Whoo-hoooo!
I think we are having Fabulous Flat Tax Friday
Or Fraudulent Tax Friday
Or just Flakey Friday
Either way this thread need to end.
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.