There's your loophole for the rich. All they have to do with their comsuption spending is to have their lawyers find ways of turning "comsumption" into "improving the standard living of others". And they will get away with it, too. Also, who's to say these fuckers aren't going to circumvent this idea by using corporate accounts and hiding their comsumption by calling it "corporate" neccessities?
The part you highlighted does not represent a "loophole" for anyone. Buying a 100 foot yacht cannot ever be turned into investment into research and development.
On the other hand, they are arguing that the FairTax system is much more fair because it, by the consumption habits of the wealthy, imposes a sort of luxury tax on the wealthy. Not all spending is uniform, i.e., the poor do not consume the same level of goods and services as the wealthy.
So you STILL may get fucked by your own state.
You probably will in the short-term until the state and local governments get the idea.
Who the hell wrote this shit? Two of the largest economies in the world are Texas and Florida? I call bullshit on that as well.
Is the FairTax fair? Yes, the FairTax is fair, and in fact, much fairer than the income tax. Wealthy people spend more money than other individuals. They buy expensive cars, big houses, and yachts. They buy filet mignon instead of hamburger, fine wine instead of beer, designer dresses, and expensive jewelry. The FairTax taxes them on these purchases. If, however, they use their money to build job-creating factories, finance research and development to create new products, or fund charitable activities (all of which help improve the standard of living of others), then those activities are not taxed.
There's your loophole for the rich. All they have to do with their comsuption spending is to have their lawyers find ways of turning "comsumption" into "improving the standard living of others". And they will get away with it, too. Also, who's to say these fuckers aren't going to circumvent this idea by using corporate accounts and hiding their comsumption by calling it "corporate" neccessities?
Any system we develop is going to have those would try to slip by it somehow. But once the IRS is abolished, and the govt. is no longer spending $5 billion/year supporting an agency that can't even decifer the code let alone collect on it, there will be plenty of funds there to police those who would try to circumvent the system.
Will corporations get a windfall with the abolition of the corporate tax? Corporations are legal fictions that have not, do not, and never will bear the burden of taxation. Only people pay taxes.
So corporations won't have to pay taxes on their own consumption? Sorry, but I call bullshit on that. They are a service/goods utilizing entity just like people - Fuck 'em.
Another goal of this plan is to turn the United States from being the tax hell that major corporations typically try to run away from into the world's greatest tax haven which will cause companies who were started here but moved their home office overseas to avoid taxes, to come back.
Thanks for looking at the plan. Another thing to check out are the studies that were done showing how spending is a more stable source of revenue than income.
You know, Rush and Kat, the primary reason that individuals and businesses are able to skirt the tax code is precisely because of its inherent confusion.
Abolishing the tax code as its currently written greatly reduces, if not eliminates, the need for lobbyists.
Who the hell wrote this shit? Two of the largest economies in the world are Texas and Florida? I call bullshit on that as well.
As a measure of GDP...yes.
Yep. 10th and 15th largest in world respectively.
You gotta love those "we're the 10th largest ecomomy in the world" stats. As if there aren't provinces in outher countries that couldn't claim the same thing.
It's a bogus stat.
"Once upon a time, dinosaurs didn't have families. They lived in the woods and ate their children. It was a golden age."
—Earl Sinclair
"I do have respect for authority even though I throw jelly dicks at them.
You gotta love those "we're the 10th largest ecomomy in the world" stats. As if there aren't provinces in outher countries that couldn't claim the same thing.
It's a bogus stat.
Exactly BSmack. Where did the 10th and 15th numbers come from? Link? That's usually what proof means - give me some evidence, not just your words.
DrDetroit wrote:You know, Rush and Kat, the primary reason that individuals and businesses are able to skirt the tax code is precisely because of its inherent confusion.
It's only confusing to those people who aren't experts in that area - like the law. It's quite legal to represent yourself in court, but most people don't. Why? Because they need an EXPERT in that field to handle all the details. The wealthy have the means to hire the experts of the tax code to use it the best way they can. Most people don't have that luxury and don't know the loopholes to use.
It's only confusing to those people who aren't experts in that area - like the law. It's quite legal to represent yourself in court, but most people don't. Why? Because they need an EXPERT in that field to handle all the details. The wealthy have the means to hire the experts of the tax code to use it the best way they can. Most people don't have that luxury and don't know the loopholes to use.
It's even confusing to the IRS. It's been demonstrated many times that different IRS tax advocates will give different advice resulting in different tax liability outcomes. Why? Because the law is not only confusing, but unclear. Interpretation is in the eye of the beholder essentially.
And the worst part of this...if you get advice from the IRS that ultimately is wrong and you end up violating the law, you're not immune from prosecution. That right there tells you something.
It's only confusing to those people who aren't experts in that area - like the law. It's quite legal to represent yourself in court, but most people don't. Why? Because they need an EXPERT in that field to handle all the details. The wealthy have the means to hire the experts of the tax code to use it the best way they can. Most people don't have that luxury and don't know the loopholes to use.
It's even confusing to the IRS. It's been demonstrated many times that different IRS tax advocates will give different advice resulting in different tax liability outcomes. Why? Because the law is not only confusing, but unclear. Interpretation is in the eye of the beholder essentially.
And the worst part of this...if you get advice from the IRS that ultimately is wrong and you end up violating the law, you're not immune from prosecution. That right there tells you something.
DD, it's possible that the reason the law is confusing and unclear is because there is no way for the law to cover every single situation that may arise. An certain type of income may not fall under guidelines because there simply are no guidelines for that type of income. This is where interpretation comes in, and why one person might receive different answers from the IRS.
KatMode wrote: DD, it's possible that the reason the law is confusing and unclear is because there is no way for the law to cover every single situation that may arise.
No, it's confusing and unclear in almost all cases because Congress did a poor job writing tax policy. This is not my conclusion, this is the conclusion of tax experts.
BSmack, re: state economies...the point is about economic activity. The economic activity of these states is greater than many countries. California ranks in the top 10 economies in the world.
It's not an empty measure, it's very important. Consider if that state was all of a sudden economically dead, whether by natural disaster or war. That's the equivalent of a top 10 economy simply disappearing. Economically, that's a huge deal.
DrDetroit wrote:BSmack, re: state economies...the point is about economic activity. The economic activity of these states is greater than many countries. California ranks in the top 10 economies in the world.
It's not an empty measure, it's very important. Consider if that state was all of a sudden economically dead, whether by natural disaster or war. That's the equivalent of a top 10 economy simply disappearing.
Not it isn't, because that economy can move. Also, that economy can be sustained and supported by the larger ecomomy of which it is a part of.
See Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama if you're having trouble with this one.
"Once upon a time, dinosaurs didn't have families. They lived in the woods and ate their children. It was a golden age."
—Earl Sinclair
"I do have respect for authority even though I throw jelly dicks at them.
DrDetroit wrote:BSmack, re: state economies...the point is about economic activity. The economic activity of these states is greater than many countries. California ranks in the top 10 economies in the world.
It's not an empty measure, it's very important. Consider if that state was all of a sudden economically dead, whether by natural disaster or war. That's the equivalent of a top 10 economy simply disappearing.
Not it isn't, because that economy can move. Also, that economy can be sustained and supported by the larger ecomomy of which it is a part of.
See Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama if you're having trouble with this one.
E-C-O-N-O-M-I-C A-C-T-I-V-I-T-Y, dummy.
No one is arguing that the state economies are independent of the national economy. The point is that you can measure the economic activity in any state, hell, any metro area, and in the cases of CA, NY, TX, FLA, ILL. the economic activity in these states are comparable to the economic activity of whole countries.
That's important because it gives you a base from which to consider the economic impact that a single state has, nationally and globally.
Really...what's your problem with measuring economic activity and comparing that activity to other nations?
No one is arguing that the state economies are independent of the national economy. The point is that you can measure the economic activity in any state, hell, any metro area, and in the cases of CA, NY, TX, FLA, ILL. the economic activity in these states are comparable to the economic activity of whole countries.
Except that it is not comparable.
That's important because it gives you a base from which to consider the economic impact that a single state has, nationally and globally.
The base is not constant. The revenue redistribution out front should have told you that.
Really...what's your problem with measuring economic activity and comparing that activity to other nations?
None whatsoever. If it were accurate. But it is not.
"Once upon a time, dinosaurs didn't have families. They lived in the woods and ate their children. It was a golden age."
—Earl Sinclair
"I do have respect for authority even though I throw jelly dicks at them.
BSmack wrote:
It is more closed that a state ecomomy. What about that don't you understand?
It isn't.
Let me know when Florida starts printing it's own money.
Dumbass.
Ya know what I really love about threads like this?
Every time you read a post by mvscum, it inevitably gets shot to hell by someone.
In the preceding pages, mv gets ass raped by any number of posters. The Bsmack - mv exchange back on pg. 3 is a classic example.
After mv had his last "no it isn't." - "you're lying." post shot to hell, he simply moves onto another jaded atack on the next idea he thinks he knows something about. The above exchange is a prime example.
And, like always, he ends up knowing NOTHING. Again.
I love reading the responses to this shitforbrains; mvscal.
