There is fraud in any system ... there is plenty in our current system, and we have a huge load to administer it now. The FairTax could be added to the current sales taxes most places already have and administer, the only difference need be the amount being sent by businesses ... no new admin load there. Most people would be honest about it for the most part, some would cheat it a little and some would cheat it alot. Some will get caught some will not, but in the end each of us will have more money to spend on what we want and be able to get more of what we want primarily because of the overall simplification of the system.
My mother in law is a tax collector for a town in PA ... she's the only tax collector, she's 77. The taxes are a fixed tiered system, no gives or takes, just income times x. The form is a 3x5 card. It's simple and cheap and they do just fine with it. The key to getting the most money to the places we NEED it is to have as few people between the end user and the government coffers. Someone (probably Jerry) said "nobody wants to pay taxes" ... I do. I want to have the few things I want from my federal government, and I don't want them doing anything for profit to pay for it, so I'll happily pay my fair share. The problem is that I'm paying way too much for shit I don't want, don't use, and cost too much for what we get. I'm a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchist ... have been consciously since I was 13, nobody else in my family is. I came to it honestly, I thought, and I read, and I formed my own opinion, THEN I looked for others who thought the same. Scott ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Argento" <[email protected]> To: "Larry Alster" <[email protected]>, "Mark Cookson" <[email protected]> Cc: "Will Erickson" <[email protected]>, [email protected] Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 10:22:27 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific Subject: Re: NMC - Healthcare Crisis Debate / Gay Marriage /Fair tax OK. Point well taken. Those against the proposal will try to put it in the most negated ive light – and those for it in the most positive light. So what ELSE is new? But I am afraid that this is not the issue. If we are going to bore the rest of the power-list with an issue, let’s stick to the issue. So let us “ bother to discuss the merits of the plan itself.” and not the tactics of the different proponents. I THINK that your argument is that the Fair Tax would be good because it is difficult to manipulate – by congress and those guys in Washington. And that it would, indeed be “fair” regardless of what rate was chosen. Mark seems to mean that the rate is too high – regardless if it is 30% exclusive or 23% inclusive – which is the same rate. My point was that it isn’t very fair in that it CAN be manipulated by those who administer it, the businesses who collect it and pass it on to the government. And it creates a black market which, my experience shows me, is far more than the 15% someone forecast. It also almost forces me, trying to be an honest businessman, to sell wares on the black market/ outside of the system simply in order to be able to compete with dishonest competitors. Over and above that, the wealthy who can afford to travel outside of the country to purchase expensive wares (like say a Rolex), easily avoid the tax in that way. I am assuming that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet would not be getting a prebate so in addition, an IRS type of authority might very well be needed in order to determine income – in that the eligibility of a prebate must be determined. We then have a system where money is moved in a circle – the government collecting money – and sending a portion of it back to some citizens. This sort of thing ALWAYS costs money – leakage through unnecessary administration. The government paying me money so I can pay it to you the vendor who pays it to the government who will take part of it to pay me does not sound very efficient. Maybe there is a better way. As I said, “Been there – done that” in my many years in Scandinavia. But there we have both income tax and this sales tax. Actually I am not complaining. It has worked well for us as a nation. But as a businessman I saw it as a mixed blessing. On the negative side it cost me a LOT of time and administration. AND it also gave me an unfair advantage, my firm being able to purchase items tax free which maybe I, the owner, would use privately. I saw neither efficiency nor fairness as the result of this system. I wish it were so easy to find a simple, fair and efficient system because the current system certainly has enough weak points. From: Larry Alster [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 12:30 PM To: [email protected]; 'Mark Cookson' Cc: 'Will Erickson'; [email protected] Subject: RE: NMC - Healthcare Crisis Debate / Gay Marriage /Fair tax No Robb My point about the rate was that anytime you see it quoted as 30% it is being done that way as a deliberate attempt to make the rate look bad and not bother to discuss the merits of the plan itself. Larry Alster 91 Miata White Knight 92 Miata Silver Bullet 92 Miata Honey B 04 MSM MX-5 Whooosh 06 WRX STi Subie From: Rob Argento [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 12:28 PM To: 'Mark Cookson'; 'Larry Alster' Cc: 'Will Erickson'; [email protected] Subject: RE: NMC - Healthcare Crisis Debate / Gay Marriage /Fair tax It seems to me that you guys are not discussing the principle of if this type of tax system would be positive or not. You are simply discussing the rate. Mark! Would you support the “fair tax” if the INCLUSIVE rate was 19% (23% add-on). Larry! Would you still support the “Fair Tax” if it was 30% inclusive (23% add-on) or would that make it an “UNFair tax”? Here is the Wikipedias take on it: The FairTax legislation would apply a 23 percent federal retail sales tax on the total transaction value of a purchase; in other words, consumers pay to the government 23 cents of every dollar spent in total (sometimes called tax-inclusive , as income taxes are calculated). The assessed tax rate is 30 percent if the FairTax is applied to the pre-tax price of a good like traditional U.S. state sales taxes (sometimes called tax-exclusive ). [4 But this is still begging the issue. The RATE is not the issue here. It is the reality of the “fairness” of such a system. Not even Libertarian seems popular. In true American spirit everyone seems to be an “independent”. /Robban From: Mark Cookson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 11:58 AM To: Larry Alster Cc: Will Erickson; Rob Argento; [email protected] Subject: Re: NMC - Healthcare Crisis Debate / Gay Marriage /Fair tax Hi Larry, First off, I'm not a Democrat (or a Republican for that matter). So if factcheck.org is lying, point me to a site that's not. Factcheck.org is typically considered a reliable source. The 30% number is based on: FairTax proponents object to the 30 percent number, claiming that critics use the larger number to frighten people. Americans for Fair Taxation claims that it uses the tax-inclusive number to make it easier to compare the FairTax to the income tax that it will replace (since most of us think of income tax rates on an inclusive basis). But we are not accustomed to thinking of sales taxes inclusively. The result is that many FairTax supporters (about 15 percent of those who wrote to us, for example) do not understand that the 23 percent figure is tax inclusive. So it's not that I don't know what I'm talking about, it's that I'm talking about it in a form that levels the playing field with respect to how people currently think about taxes. I'm no math major, but I know how percentages work, and I'm able to compute them back and forth as long I know the reference point. For any useful discussion we need to agree on a common frame of reference, and I'm more than willing to use yours, but you should also be able to mount a cogent argument using my numbers, because after all, they're identical, just with a different frame of reference. Remember, only the speed of light is a constant, everything else requires a reference frame to be meaningful. Also, nowhere on the factcheck site do they talk about the sale of a house only being taxed once, so I figured that the sale would be taxed every time. If that's not the case, then I'm relieved, but even if that's the case, you're still going to have sellers pass that cost along to the next buyer. Their claim that interest rates would fall is a baseless claim and sounds like wishful thinking; income tax rates have no direct correlation to interest rates (for instance, my last mortgage was based on LIBOR, which isn't even a US based interest rate, so US taxes are extremely unlikely to affect it). There's no guarantee that prices would go down just because of the FairTax coming into existence. While's it's true that businesses pay taxes, it's not true that they pass those taxes 100% on to the consumer. Part of those costs are passed on to their employees and share holders along with reduced R&D and cheaper coffee in the break room. So I might get a raise, but that seems unlikely to happen immediately (I would at least have to wait for my yearly review). While you claim that I'm stupid and uninformed, you've failed to address any of the concerns I brought up later in my e-mail. Please address those. As a Skeptic I'm used to having to correct people over and over again, and while it can be frustrating, it's our cross to bear for trying to educate people. So if you're not willing to educate me, then I respectfully request that you stop denigrating me. Mark On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Larry Alster < [email protected] > wrote: Jerry Take this with all the love it’s intended. YOU’RE AN IDIOT I stopped reading your message after the 2 nd paragraph because it’s clearly apparent you either didn’t read anything or you didn’t understand a thing you read. Like a typical Democrat you use exactly the FALSE argument against the FairTax. Nothing will go up 30%, nothing will even go up 23% which is the projected tax and if factcheck told you that then I apologize for calling you and idiot and will call them liars. ALL taxes go away except for the FairTax, which means the companies building and selling you the house are paying no taxes on it as it’s built so the cost goes down by all those embedded taxes and the FairTax is added on when the house is sold. For the first time only., Go back and read some more or find a site that’s not lying about the plan. Larry Alster 91 Miata White Knight 92 Miata Silver Bullet 92 Miata Honey B 04 MSM MX-5 Whooosh 06 WRX STi Subie From: Mark Cookson [mailto: [email protected] ] Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2009 6:03 PM To: Will Erickson Cc: Larry Alster; Rob Argento; [email protected] Subject: Re: NMC - Healthcare Crisis Debate / Gay Marriage /Fair tax So I was reading up on "FairTax" (one word, not two) on factcheck.org (which I believe is a reasonably accurate and unbiased site) and was quite startled by how much I didn't like it. It taxes things that have never been taxed before, like house purchases, rent, and interest payments. I don't the idea of paying 30% more for my house, or then paying a 30% tax on the interest for the loan (which would itself be 30% more than I would have needed to borrow). They believe that 15% of people will dodge this tax (just like 15% of people currently dodge the current tax system), and that's factored into the need for a 30% value to keep the federal government's income level the same as before. But, if people stop buying stuff, or stop borrowing stuff (isn't there like a couple billion dollars in interest paid every year?), then the government's income level falls and they'll need to raise the rate. I worry that it would reduce the amount of consumption in the US, and for an economy that runs on consumption, that's going to be a problem for everyone. I also worry that a lot of money out there wouldn't be taxed (which might or might not currently be taxed) because it just sits in stocks/bonds/mutual funds/savings and never gets spent. I don't know if this money, or just the interest it's earning, would be taxed, and if it's not taxed, then I think that's definitely missing the idea of a "fair tax". At least with the current income tax that money was taxed before it bought the stocks, etc., but now it won't be and that means that they have to increase the tax rate on everything else. So, if Warren Buffet sits around with 40 billion dollars in the bank and never buys a new house (which he hasn't done in like 30 years), and generally doesn't buy much "stuff", how is this a "fair tax"? After all, rich people really don't buy all that much more stuff (after a while, all that extra money isn't really useful), in fact some of them got rich by NOT spending their money (I know I would have a lot more if I didn't keep dumping it into cars and computers) I for one would love to make 20% more income and start living like a pauper, not buying anything, just so that I could watch my bank account grow, but if I'm not mistaken, that's what got Japan into it's recession -- something that it's just now getting out of some 20 years later. I like the idea of a flat tax on income without any loopholes. Actually, come to think of it, I like a graduated tax without any loopholes, which would be what we would have if we just removed the loopholes. Mark On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 3:09 PM, Will Erickson < [email protected] > wrote: I have to say I'm kind of enjoying these emails. I think Bill's right, the FM turbo's are now so well sorted we just don't have many problems to try and solve. 3 years strong on my 94 FM2 and have yet to experience any issues other than bad plug wires and a blown off intercooler pipe. Here's my contribution to the dialog: http://www.ronpaul.com/ Will (going back to my quiet little corner) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Larry Alster" <[email protected]> To: "'Rob Argento'" < [email protected] >; < [email protected] > Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2009 1:52 PM Subject: RE: NMC - Healthcare Crisis Debate / Gay Marriage /Fair tax > Again you need to read the info on the bill. It's not the same as a flat > tax or a VAT for a number of different reasons. > > Not the least of which is the Prebate which allows the "poor" to live > virtually tax free. > > > > > Larry Alster > > 91 Miata White Knight > 92 Miata Silver Bullet > 92 Miata Honey B > 04 MSM MX-5 Whooosh > 06 WRX STi Subie > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto: [email protected] ] On Behalf Of Rob Argento > Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2009 3:41 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: NMC - Healthcare Crisis Debate / Gay Marriage /Fair tax > > I have not taken part in the "debate" in that it hasn't been very > informative. I have heard the same > old arguments/accusations from all. But I DO believe that there is a need > for exchange and debate. > I only wish it was a bit more civil and not a boxing contest to see who > can > get in the quickest > blows. If you guys have a hard time understanding the civil war in > Yugoslavia, neighbor against > neighbor, just reread your own exchange. > > Besides, I lurk here to read about Miata power issues, not uninformative > debates and verbal boxing > matches. > > That being said, I found it interesting that the concept of the "fair tax" > was brought up. And Larry > is, of course, right in saying that we should look at it before simply > throwing it out based upon > its name or which politicians have brought it up. > > As I understand it the "Fair tax" is a tax paid on consumption of > services, > goods, whatever paid by > the end buyer. Much like a sales tax or the European VAT or the Swedish > MOMS. Yes, there are > differences, but for all practical purposes it is a tax not on income but > taken out when you USE the > money for your own pleasure or need. > > While the American designers of this proposal probably mean well, I have > lived under this system > and, quite frankly, it doesn't work and is far from being fair. In Sweden > (and Denmark) this tax is > 25%. Something that would have cost $100 actually costs me $125. It is > a > 25% added on tax - or > counted backwards, 20% of all money I spend is tax. Well, sounds fair > but... > > What is created is an enormous black market. Someone comes to me and > wants > to buy a computer for > let us say $1000. Well, actually I only get $800. $200 is tax which I > will > hand over to Uncle Sven. > My company will make a profit on the $800 and this I pay a tax on. My > customer only HAS $800 to > spend. Do I say no to the sale or just keep it off of the books. In fact > if > I keep it off of the > books, I will reduce my profit and thus my income tax (for in Sweden we > also > have an income tax). > > The system creates an incentive to make one's major purchases outside of > the > country. Why should I > buy my BMW in Sweden if I can go to Poland and buy it there for 20% less? > Or clothing, or > electronics or food or gasoline if I live near a boarder? OK, most people > can't afford to travel > that far, but those with the MOST money to spend most often have even the > means to travel and an > even bigger incentive - in that richer people simply buy more stuff. > > So, the poor schmuck with not much money can hardly take advantage of this > part of the black market. > Well, he can buy stuff that others smuggle in - like booze, cigarettes, > and > whatever there are high > profits and good demand for. In fact, the smugglers goods ARE in higher > demand. They cost 20% > less! > > On top of that, I who may be trying to run a legit business, simply can't > compete with the black > marketer. He will always be cheaper that I for the same goods or the same > service. > > OK, you guys might hate your income taxes and your IRS. That is probably > natural - but take another > look at any suggestion to replace it. We all want a fair tax. If you can > make it any more fair, > please do! I am open to all suggestions. But the current proposal for a > "fair tax" and its distant > cousin, the "flat tax" both seems to me not to solve anything at all. > > > /Robban - who commutes sort of between Europe and Florida though not in my > MSM. > > > > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:16:45 -0400 > From: "Larry Alster" <[email protected]> > Subject: RE: NMC - Healthcare Crisis Debate / Gay Marriage > To: "'Dan Scolnick'" < [email protected] >, "'Casey Wheeler'" > < [email protected] >, < [email protected] > > Cc: [email protected] > Message-ID: <05b101ca3f9e$ac667960$05336c...@net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Hey Dan > > > > Rather than just making stupid comments about it why don't you try the > concept about reading up on it before you mouth off. > > Larry Alster > > > _______________________________________________ > Miatapower mailing list > [email protected] > http://list.miatapower.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/miatapower > > _______________________________________________ > Miatapower mailing list > [email protected] > http://list.miatapower.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/miatapower _______________________________________________ Miatapower mailing list [email protected] http://list.miatapower.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/miatapower _______________________________________________ Miatapower mailing list [email protected] http://list.miatapower.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/miatapower _______________________________________________ Miatapower mailing list [email protected] http://list.miatapower.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/miatapower
