Thread: Illegals bilk taxpayers in $13 million fraud ring

Originally Posted by MW

Judy wrote:

MW, if we don't pass the FairTax to repeal the income tax with a national retail sales tax on new products and services with a Rebate up to the family consumption allowance, you're going to end up with an income tax and a national sales tax on everything.

A recommendation is simply that, a recommendation. If the Fairy Tax was to pass and the 16th Amendment wasn't repealed, we would eventually end up with both. Do you really think the Congress is going to repeal the 16th Amendment? Sorry, I just don't see it happening anytime soon.

So you don't know that the FairTax legislation, HB 25 and SB 296 require repeal of the 16th Amendment and ratification of it by the states within 7 yeas or the FairTax legislation self-terminates under a sunset provision? Oops! Maybe it would help you if you'd read the legislation so you know what it does and doesn't do? Do you really think that a Congress that passes the FairTax legislation isn't also going to pass the legislation for a repeal of the 16th Amendment at the same time? Do you really think that states who would now control the federal coffer collections of the US government and are paid well for it aren't going to ratify a repeal of the 16th Amendment to gain that power and authority?

Like I've posted before, some very very smart people developed the FairTax.

By the way, MW, I've asked this question of you before and didn't receive a reply, why again do you personally prefer the mandated income tax system over the FairTax?

judy wrote:

Really?!! Who might these "so-called experts" be , MW? Because I'm an expert and have spent 30 years working with experts and I don't know a soul among them that defends the mandated income tax system over the FairTax.

Whoa - hold the bus. Are you actually going to sit there with a straight face and tell me that all economist are in support of the Fairy Tax?

By the way, MW, I've asked this question of you before and didn't receive a reply, why again do you personally prefer the mandated income tax system over the FairTax?

To be honest, I don't prefer either, however, I'm smart enough to know that going from the oven to the frying pan is not the answer.

Judy wrote:

So you don't know that the FairTax legislation, HB 25 and SB 296 require repeal of the 16th Amendment and ratification of it by the states within 7 yeas or the FairTax legislation self-terminates under a sunset provision?

You claim that the Fair Tax would repeal of the 16th Amendment. However, all H.R. 25 does is repeal Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that relates to income taxes and self-employment taxes and Subtitle C that relates to payroll taxes and the withholding of income taxes. The only mention of the 16th Amendment in H.R. 25 is when it says: "Congress further finds that the 16th amendment to the United States Constitution should be repealed."

To repeal the 16th Amendment would require a constitutional amendment. Can Congress be relied on to pass a constitutional amendment that repeals the 16th amendment after a national sales tax has already been enacted? And even if Congress passed a constitutional amendment, it would still have to be approved by three-fourths of the states. Without the repeal of the 16th Amendment, what is to prevent an income tax from being imposed again after a national sales tax has been enacted?

Originally Posted by MW

judy wrote:

Really?!! Who might these "so-called experts" be , MW? Because I'm an expert and have spent 30 years working with experts and I don't know a soul among them that defends the mandated income tax system over the FairTax.

Whoa - hold the bus. Are you actually going to sit there with a straight face and tell me that all economist are in support of the Fairy Tax?

Going from the oven to the frying pan is not the answer.

Absolutely, I will. No American Economist is going to sign his/her name to a statement defending the mandated income tax system for the United States. How could they? It's destroyed the US economy and bankrupted the US government.

Why are you referring to the FairTax as a "Fairy Tax"?

The FairTax isn't going from the oven to the frying pan, MW. It's going from the failure of oppression to the success of freedom.

I realize for some who have been happily caged, it will take awhile for them to walk out the open door to freedom which will be with the first check they get at their job with no withholdings for Social Security, MediCare or Federal Income Tax . For the ones without jobs but earned income, it will be the first quarter they didn't have to file and pay estimated income and self-employment taxes. For those who have no job or earned income, it will be the first month they receive their Rebate. For employers, it will be the first payroll they don't have to withhold on employees and the first month they didn't have to match SS and MediCare payments. For investors, it will be the first deal they make where they didn't have to mark-up their entire project by 50% to cover the costs of federal income tax. As for the rest ... oh wait .. there aren't any "rest" that matter.

Judy wrote:

Absolutely, I will. No American Economist is going to sign his/her name to a statement defending the mandated income tax system for the United States. How could they? It's destroyed the US economy and bankrupted the US government.

I've got to give you credit, you're great at twisting words. No one, including me, has said anything about economist supporting our current tax system. What I said was not all economist support the Fairy Tax.

Judy Wrote:

I realize for some who have been happily caged, it will take awhanile for them walk out the open door to freedom which will be the first check they get at their job with no withholdings for Social Security, MediCare or Federal Income Tax .

Yep, they'll be estatic with the new found 30% increase on their next purchase of a new home, car, boat, food, etc. They'll also be very happy when they find out their employer will be forced to reduce their wages.

Originally Posted by MW

Judy wrote:

So you don't know that the FairTax legislation, HB 25 and SB 296 require repeal of the 16th Amendment and ratification of it by the states within 7 yeas or the FairTax legislation self-terminates under a sunset provision?

You claim that the Fair Tax would repeal of the 16th Amendment. However, all H.R. 25 does is repeal Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that relates to income taxes and self-employment taxes and Subtitle C that relates to payroll taxes and the withholding of income taxes. The only mention of the 16th Amendment in H.R. 25 is when it says: "Congress further finds that the 16th amendment to the United States Constitution should be repealed."

To repeal the 16th Amendment would require a constitutional amendment. Can Congress be relied on to pass a constitutional amendment that repeals the 16th amendment after a national sales tax has already been enacted? And even if Congress passed a constitutional amendment, it would still have to be approved by three-fourths of the states. Without the repeal of the 16th Amendment, what is to prevent an income tax from being imposed again after a national sales tax has been enacted?

Like I said, MW, you really ought to read the legislation and then you wouldn't make these errors in your comments. I said the FairTax legislation requires a repeal of the 16th Amendment within 7 years of its passage or the FairTax legislation self-terminates. From Section 401 of the FairTax legislation, HB 25, introduced into Congress in 2009:

H.R.25
Fair Tax Act of 2009 (Introduced in House)

SEC. 401. ELIMINATION OF SALES TAX IF SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT NOT REPEALED.

If the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is not repealed before the end of the 7-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, then all provisions of, and amendments made by, this Act shall not apply to any use or consumption in any year beginning after December 31 of the calendar year in which or with which such period ends, except that the Sales Tax Bureau of the Department of the Treasury shall not be terminated until 6 months after such December 31.

Furthermore, from Section 101, 102 and 103 of the FairTax Act:

SEC. 101. INCOME TAXES REPEALED.

Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to income taxes and self-employment taxes) is repealed.

SEC. 102. PAYROLL TAXES REPEALED.

(a) In General- Subtitle C of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to payroll taxes and withholding of income taxes) is repealed.

(b) Funding of Social Security- For funding of the Social Security Trust Funds from general revenue, see section 201 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401).

SEC. 103. ESTATE AND GIFT TAXES REPEALED.

Subtitle B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to estate and gift taxes) is repealed.

The FairTax repeals all personal income tax, all corporate income tax, all social security tax, all MediCare tax, all self-employment tax, all capital gains tax, all gift tax, all dividend tax, all interest tax and all estate tax.

You ask what is to prevent an income tax from being imposed while we have the FairTax? Vote Republican. The income tax will have been repealed by law. It will no longer exist. If the 16th amendment isn't repealed within 7 years of passage of the FairTax, then the FairTax self-terminates so the Democrats can't tax us twice. But what is to prevent a national sales tax from being imposed now while we still have an income tax? Duh.

Republicans despise the income tax, MW. We will never ever re-impose the income tax. We never imposed it to begin with. We opposed it always and good luck to the Democrats trying to impose it again after we abolish it. No corporation would ever support it. No working, earning or retired citizen would ever support it. Once abolished either through law and/or repeal of the 16th Amendment, it doesn't matter, that ugly evil beast will never again be present in the United States.

www.fairtax.org

Originally Posted by MW

Judy wrote:

Absolutely, I will. No American Economist is going to sign his/her name to a statement defending the mandated income tax system for the United States. How could they? It's destroyed the US economy and bankrupted the US government.

I've got to give you credit, you're great at twisting words. No one, including me, has said anything about economist supporting our current tax system. What I said was not all economist support the Fairy Tax.

Judy Wrote:

[quote:115u51ao]I realize for some who have been happily caged, it will take awhile for them to walk out the open door to freedom which will be the first check they get at their job with no withholdings for Social Security, MediCare or Federal Income Tax .

Yep, they'll be estatic with the new found 30% increase on their next purchase of a new home, car, boat, food, etc. They'll also be very happy when they find out their employer will be forced to reduce their wages. [/quote:115u51ao]

Well, MW, I didn't twist your words. There's only so many options for federal tax. So if economists don't support the FairTax, their only alternatives are an income tax which we know they don't support, or a sales tax which they all support and if comes down to a national sales tax, a value added tax or the FairTax guess which one's going to be favored? The one that taxes retail sales of new products and services purchased for non-business purposes with a Rebate to offset he tax on essentials up to the family consumption allowance. Why? Because it's the simplest and most efficient of the 3, and the most fair because of the Rebate.

As to your other suggestions:

1. Under the FairTax, the cost of the new boat, new home, new car, whatever will be the same, not 30% higher. The boat company no longer pays corporate income tax, capital gains tax, dividend tax, interest tax or social security and medicare tax or the cost compliance with 70,000 pages of tax code, so the tax savings and and administrative cost savings more than offset the FairTax which by statute is 23% not 30%.

2. Under the FairTax, employers won't be "forced" to reduce anyone's wages, they can now afford to pay higher wages, not lower, as well as offer health insurance and other benefits it might not have been able to do under the mandated income tax system that sucked out their retained earnings. They can also pay off their debts and improve their net worth, borrow money at lower costs next time or not borrow at all reducing their finance expenses.

So you support either income taxes or the FairTax, yet you defend the mandated income tax and for some yet untold reason call the FairTax a "Fairy Tax". That sure sounds like someone picking a side to me.



When you find a name for an American Economist that supports something other than the FairTax , national sale tax or value-added tax, let me know.

Judy wrote:

As to your other suggestions:

1. Under the FairTax, the cost of the new boat, new home, new car, whatever will be the same, not 30% higher. The boat company no longer pays corporate income tax, capital gains tax, dividend tax, interest tax or social security and medicare tax or the cost compliance with 70,000 pages of tax code, so the tax savings and and administrative cost savings more than offset the FairTax which by statute is 23% not 30%.

The Neal Boortz talking points aren't going to work, Judy.

The actual rate of the national sales tax would be 30%, not 23% as you claim. This difference is due to the deceptive language that the proponents use to describe the tax rate calculation (Fairy Tax new math). Not only is this deception insulting, but it also makes it easier for the government to raise the tax rate in the future because people will think that the current rate is lower than it actually is. For example, if a product costs $1 at retail, the Fairy Tax adds 30%, for a total of $1.30. Since the 30-cent tax is 23% of $1.30, Fairy Tax supporters, in an attempt to make the Fairy Tax more appealing, say the rate is 23% rather than 30%. The obvious deception is easy to see through. Tax or not, the average consumer only sees the extra dollars they're paying as an increase in price. Can you imagine paying $26,000 for a car that retails at $20,000 - that would certainly seem like a price increase to me.

Judy wrote:

So you support either income taxes or the FairTax, yet you defend the mandated income tax and for some yet untold reason call the FairTax a "Fairy Tax". That sure sounds like someone picking a side to me.

How's this for an alternative, Judy: Nothing. I guess the likleyhood of that happening is just as probable as the Fairy Tax.

Excerpt:

"Ban the income tax, definitely. Banish it. Disband the Internal Revenue Service and auction their buildings to the highest bidder. Let all the IRS auditors, clerks, and armed enforcers get honest jobs.

But don't replace the income tax with any tax, of any variety.

The United States survived until 1913 without an income tax. It survived until World War II without wage withholding (a federal trick “for the duration of the warâ€

Originally Posted by MW

Judy wrote:

As to your other suggestions:

1. Under the FairTax, the cost of the new boat, new home, new car, whatever will be the same, not 30% higher. The boat company no longer pays corporate income tax, capital gains tax, dividend tax, interest tax or social security and medicare tax or the cost compliance with 70,000 pages of tax code, so the tax savings and and administrative cost savings more than offset the FairTax which by statute is 23% not 30%.

The Neal Boortz talking points aren't going to work, Judy.

The actual rate of the national sales tax would be 30%, not 23% as you claim. This difference is due to the deceptive language that the proponents use to describe the tax rate calculation (Fairy Tax new math). Not only is this deception insulting, but it also makes it easier for the government to raise the tax rate in the future because people will think that the current rate is lower than it actually is. For example, if a product costs $1 at retail, the Fairy Tax adds 30%, for a total of $1.30. Since the 30-cent tax is 23% of $1.30, Fairy Tax supporters, in an attempt to make the Fairy Tax more appealing, say the rate is 23% rather than 30%. The obvious deception is easy to see through. Tax or not, the average consumer only sees the extra dollars they're paying as an increase in price. Can you imagine paying $26,000 for a car that retails at $20,000 - that would certainly seem like a price increase to me.

I've never listened to Neal Boortz "talking points" or read his book or anyone else's. I read the legislation. You might want to try it. You remember what a hard time we gave the Obama Care Fanatics about not reading the health care reform bill.

Now for the 23% versus the 30%. Are you aware of how prices are established in the United States in our little free nation of free markets? Well, they're priced by supply and demand.

So if the market demand supports a market price for a widget of $26,000 under the mandated income tax system, then market demand supports a price for a widget of $26,000 under the FairTax. No change in price under the FairTax because the taxes collected under the FairTax are the same taxes collected through the corporate income tax under the mandated tax system.

The differences are:

1. When a retail dealer sells the widget for $26,000 under the FairTax, it sends in 23% to the states in FairTaxes, netting $20,020 tax free.

2. When a consumer buys a widget for $26,000 under the FairTax, it gets a receipt showing that 23% of the price they paid for the widget is for FairTaxes.

3. The retail dealer and his/her supply chain is happy because the $20,020 they netted is tax-free, no SS embedded taxes, no MediCare embedded taxes, no capital gains embedded taxes, no interest embedded taxes and no dividend embedded taxes and just as importantly, no uncompensated compliance costs embedded. It is all theirs to keep.

4. The consumer is happy because instead of not being able to afford a car payment before the FairTax because the government took 33% of their earnings in federal income, social security and medicare taxes under the mandated income tax system, under the FairTax they can afford a car payment. In fact, they had so much tax savings, they bought a family health insurance policy and put up a down payment for a nice used car for their 16 year old son.

5. The language of the FairTax is that the percentage is 23% not 30% and it's inclusive exactly like the way income tax rates are calculated. I'm rather surprised that you have some issue with an inclusive retail sale tax rate but don't seem to feel your intelligence was insulted by the inclusive income tax rates of the mandated income tax system. Does the inclusive income tax rate insult your intelligence, MW?

6. No car that retails at $20,000 today will retail for any more under the FairTax. It will retail at market price based on supply and demand under the FairTax, just as it does now. Since there will be more healthy companies under the FairTax, it is possible that prices will actually deflate due to the increased competition and new efficiencies.

www.fairtax.org

You're not listening, Judy. All it seems I'm doing is giving you the opportunity to twist many of my comments in order to utilize the standard Fairy Tax talking points. IMO, it's useless to argue over it at this point because it will not become reality anytime soon (probably never). However, I do see the possibility of a VAT being added to our current system, which isn't good. Like the say, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.