Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Boortz)   It's Tax Day and here's some fun hints on how to fark with your co-workers today   (boortz.com) divider line 200
    More: Amusing  
•       •       •

24740 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Apr 2008 at 12:17 PM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



200 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-04-15 04:09:48 PM  
IrateShadow: And still no response to the having to lower wages argument. :/

I can't imagine why. Why don't you Fairtax fans ever post this one?

Boortz: When the FairTax is implemented, and when business and personal income and payroll taxes disappear, your employer is going to have to make a decision. He will either take some or the entire amount he had been withholding for federal income and payroll taxes and add it to your weekly check, or he will readjust your pay figures so that your entire paycheck will be equal to what you used to call "take home pay" before the FairTax. The employer may also decide to do a little of both.
 
2008-04-15 04:18:15 PM  
IrateShadow: One thing that I'd like to mention is that the only way that prices are going to drop the 20-something percent that is currently "embedded" is if every company cuts all tax revenues paid out, including the ones in your paycheck. This means that under fairtax, you should expect one of two things: prices will either go up ~30% to compensate for the fair tax, or your paycheck will drop ~23% to keep store prices the same.


Corporate income taxes are different than the taxes they are forced to pay on your behalf.

Both will disappear. If anything, I'll expect a raise since they won't be burdened with the employee income taxes anymore than they will the corporate income taxes.

Like someone said above, it's not voodoo, people have just been so conditioned to taking the big G's big D for so long they don't they can't believe it.
 
2008-04-15 04:19:20 PM  
bofh03: What could be fairer and simpler than a flat sales tax? You are taxed based on consumption...no loopholes...you buy more, you pay more, you buy less, you pay less.

You must be a troll.


I don't oppose the idea in principle, but I'm not certain that its proponents are being entirely honest about it, and furthermore, I'm skeptical of anything Boortz proposes.
 
2008-04-15 04:22:59 PM  
IrateShadow: IrateShadow: And still no response to the having to lower wages argument. :/

I can't imagine why. Why don't you Fairtax fans ever post this one?

Boortz: When the FairTax is implemented, and when business and personal income and payroll taxes disappear, your employer is going to have to make a decision. He will either take some or the entire amount he had been withholding for federal income and payroll taxes and add it to your weekly check, or he will readjust your pay figures so that your entire paycheck will be equal to what you used to call "take home pay" before the FairTax. The employer may also decide to do a little of both.


D'oh! Refresh before posting!

He's saying your employer may try and fark you. What's funny, if your employer does anything but adjust your pay to exactly what used to be 'take home pay', you essentially come out on top. So if they don't bring it back down to the old level, you're still 'taking home more pay'.

If my employer tries that BS, they won't have many employees for very long.
 
2008-04-15 04:23:58 PM  
mdeesnuts: If anything, I'll expect a raise since they won't be burdened with the employee income taxes anymore than they will the corporate income taxes.

I had no idea that companies were in business to give you money. How wonderful.

Now here's what we didn't explain well in the book. Every employee of any company involved in American commerce is also a provider of a service, and, as such, the employee incurs a tax liability as a result of his or her work. This tax liability is incorporated into what the employee charges the employer for their services, and is eventually incorporated into the final retail cost of the employer's product or service. Each employee is essentially a separate business entity providing a product, be it physical or mental labor, to the employer.

...

Now, let's elaborate on the "keep 100% of your paycheck" line that appears in The FairTax Book. It is certainly true that after the FairTax becomes law there will be no more withholding from your paycheck for any federal taxes. What you earn is what you get. This is not to say that your gross pay will equal what it was before the FairTax. This will depend on what your employer does when the embedded costs represented by the tax burden you have passed on to your employer disappear.

I'm sure that the shareholders will just love raising everyone's wages at the expense of profits.
 
2008-04-15 04:26:35 PM  
mdeesnuts: If my employer tries that BS, they won't have many employees for very long.

While it's true that you may quit, and look for another place to work, what do you do if everyone pulls this switch? I mean it's a gimme 23% pay cut across the board. It'll be fairly unlikely that you'll be able to pull your current wage at a new firm, unless you are in a highly specialized profession.
 
2008-04-15 04:34:53 PM  
Obdicut: zavier:

You didn't actually answer the question.

Here's a question for you:

Person A is a low-income worker making $29,000 a year. He spends $20,000 every year, on food, power, clothing, car stuff, rent. He spends $4,000 on consumer products aside from car stuff, and manages to save $5,000 a year, since he's cool and frugal.

Person B is a wealthy COO of a corporation, who gets much of his pay in the form of stock options. He makes $140,000 cash, plus $250,000 worth of stock options each year. He spends about $80,000 per year on food, power, clothing, car stuff, rent, $20,000 on luxuries like travel and consumer goods, and invests $290,000 each year (stock options + his disposable investment).

Who will benefit more from the Fair Tax, even assuming that all the food, power, clothing, car stuff, and rent are called "necessities"?


I would say that person A would directly benefit more because the prebate will help them more. They will start receiving $2,392 annually. This is considerably more percentage-wise compared to person A's annual income who will be receiving the same amount.

Remember, it is not the government's role to punish or reward people based on how much they make. Down that road lies class warfare. A flat consumption tax is as fair as it gets.
 
2008-04-15 04:38:25 PM  
zavier: I would say that person A would directly benefit more because the prebate will help them more. They will start receiving $2,392 annually. This is considerably more percentage-wise compared to person A's annual income who will be receiving the same amount.

So you didn't actually do the math, right? Because you're, well, wrong.

Remember, it is not the government's role to punish or reward people based on how much they make. Down that road lies class warfare. A flat consumption tax is as fair as it gets.

A flat consumption tax punishes people on how much they make.
 
2008-04-15 04:44:48 PM  
NuclearWinter: zavier: The following is cribbed unceremoniously from The FairTax Book.

So basically you're not going to tell people that their rent, credit debt, and health bills will be taxed under the plan (which aren't taxed now). Awesome.

As far as the prebate, do you think it's going to cover the taxes listed above? Hah.

Oh, and who is going to enforce the new law since we're getting rid of the IRS? Oh, and what are you going to say to the CPAs who specialize in tax? Are we going to have any audits?

Once you start asking questions, the whole FT plan unravels. It's nice to believe that companies will benevolently drop their "embedded tax" (god I hate that stupid phrase) and things will magically get better for everyone in the US, but the math doesn't hold up. The mere fact that FairTax proponents won't admit that there will be losers in the plan should tell you something.

And all you've got to do is hear Boortz go on one of his "Wealth Envy" rants to know who would lose under HR 25.

/But I remain safe in the knowledge that it would never pass
//Just like Ron Paul would never become President
///Thank you $deity.


I already told everyone that their rent and health bills would be taxed. You think they're not being taxed right now? Wow.

Also please explain how $2,392 for a person will not cover refunding the tax only of the bare necessities up to the poverty level. It is not the government's role to provide for it's people but it is the government's responsibility to allow a basic quality of life without any hinderance.

Please explain as well how people's credit debt would be taxed under the Fair Tax plan. Isn't that money that they have already spent? Also remember that you're getting your whole paycheck to pay these bills. Maybe I just need a clarification on what you're getting at.

Also, the IRS will most likely not disappear completely. It will be drasically reduced though out of lack of need. If it doesn't, who cares? The Fair Taxes collected will be enough to pay for all of government in it's current state. Any reduction is just gravy.
 
2008-04-15 04:47:10 PM  
zavier: Also remember that you're getting your whole paycheck to pay these bills.

Your employer pays you the amount of money he needs to pay you based on market forces. Removing the payroll taxes will remove a cost from business, but there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that it will lead to an increase in average pay for Americans. In fact, it's an extraordinary claim that flies in the face of known economic capitalist theory to assert that it would.
 
2008-04-15 04:49:58 PM  
In typical Fark fashion, the freeloaders among us show their heads to talk trash about something "fair" as they profess in other forums about their entitlement to things they didn't earn. Forgive my lack of surprise.

EITC is simply welfare. Enjoy it, freeloaders. You don't deserve it.
 
2008-04-15 04:50:27 PM  
Obdicut: zavier: Also remember that you're getting your whole paycheck to pay these bills.

Your employer pays you the amount of money he needs to pay you based on market forces. Removing the payroll taxes will remove a cost from business, but there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that it will lead to an increase in average pay for Americans. In fact, it's an extraordinary claim that flies in the face of known economic capitalist theory to assert that it would.


I'm talking about no federal tax withholdings, Social Security, or Medicare, not the payroll taxes they pay on your behalf. They will do what they want with their newfound windfall.
 
2008-04-15 04:50:52 PM  
zavier: If it doesn't, who cares? The Fair Taxes collected will be enough to pay for all of government in it's current state. Any reduction is just gravy.

... If the end result is the same tax revinue and no reduction of overhead why bother? Why spend the money to research a plan that would keep the status quo? Who does this plan actively benefit?

Hint: they have 20 million to spend on a plan that may never come to fruition.
 
2008-04-15 04:52:51 PM  
zavier: They will do what they want with their newfound windfall.

I have a question, and I'd like an honest answer: When was the last time that any company opted to benefit empoyees over shareholders?
 
2008-04-15 04:54:58 PM  
IrateShadow: I had no idea that companies were in business to give you money. How wonderful.

Some employers aren't complete unadulterated dicks doing everything in their power (including screwing the people who work for them) to make one more penny.

I'm sure that the shareholders will just love raising everyone's wages at the expense of profits.


They wouldn't be raising wages. They could stop automatically deducting taxes for the government and give you the money instead. Which makes a pretty good point that this whole system we have now really just gives more control to companies & corporations over employees. Wouldn't it be great if they didn't have that power?

While it's true that you may quit, and look for another place to work, what do you do if everyone pulls this switch? I mean it's a gimme 23% pay cut across the board. It'll be fairly unlikely that you'll be able to pull your current wage at a new firm, unless you are in a highly specialized profession.

Labor is a market like everything else. Both employers and employees will adjust which points back to your 2008-04-15 04:23:58 PM post. Of course, employers in a field put together a big conspiracy to keep the little man down. So they can bottom out the price of the labor pool they have to work with.

Wait... why don't they do that now?
 
2008-04-15 04:56:47 PM  
zavier: I'm talking about no federal tax withholdings, Social Security, or Medicare, not the payroll taxes they pay on your behalf. They will do what they want with their newfound windfall.

Yes. But you're claiming they will use the savings to raise their worker's paychecks. Why on earth would they do that, when there's absolutely no market force pushing them to do so? When they renegotiate their lease to something lower, do they go out and raise their employees' pay? If they are any sort of decent corporation, they pay their employees what the market determines, and give wealth to their shareholders. Why are you making the assertion that they would not behave as they always have?
 
2008-04-15 04:59:35 PM  
zavier: I already told everyone that their rent and health bills would be taxed. You think they're not being taxed right now? Wow.

They're not, unless you're going to try to come up with some convoluted way of saying that rent or a doctors bill has "embedded taxes". How about the tax on a new home? Wouldn't you love to see your property value after that?

Also please explain how $2,392 for a person will not cover refunding the tax only of the bare necessities up to the poverty level. It is not the government's role to provide for it's people but it is the government's responsibility to allow a basic quality of life without any hinderance.

2,392 a YEAR. Yes. With 30% tax on everything I pay for, that 200$/month will go REAL far. Right.

Please explain as well how people's credit debt would be taxed under the Fair Tax plan. Isn't that money that they have already spent? Also remember that you're getting your whole paycheck to pay these bills. Maybe I just need a clarification on what you're getting at.

The FairTax taxes goods and SERVICES. The loan the credit card issuer gives you is a service, and thus the interest on the credit is taxable.

Also, the IRS will most likely not disappear completely. It will be drasically reduced though out of lack of need. If it doesn't, who cares? The Fair Taxes collected will be enough to pay for all of government in it's current state. Any reduction is just gravy.

So then what's the point? You can say it's to make it easier (but as it's been shown, even YOU (a proponent!) don't know what is or isn't taxable under FairTax), you can say it's to get rid of the IRS, but in the end, it boils down to this. It's good for high income earners, bad for everyone else. Call it class warfare, call it wealth envy, but you can't escape that fact.
 
2008-04-15 05:01:18 PM  
mdeesnuts: Labor is a market like everything else. Both employers and employees will adjust which points back to your 2008-04-15 04:23:58 PM post. Of course, employers in a field put together a big conspiracy to keep the little man down. So they can bottom out the price of the labor pool they have to work with.

They don't have to collude. let me break this down for you. You produce widgets, and current market forces allow you to drop the price of your widgets by 23% by cutting your employee's salary by X%. But get this, a law just passed that says that if you cut your employee's salary by X%, they won't see any difference in what they take home.

Now, faced with the options of unhappy employees or the potential for your competitor to undercut your price by 23%, what are you going to do? And what's going to happen to you if you choose wrongly?
 
2008-04-15 05:01:51 PM  
zavier: I'm talking about no federal tax withholdings, Social Security, or Medicare, not the payroll taxes they pay on your behalf.

Oh, and don't forget that since FairTax is "revenue neutral", there's still that pesky Social Security problem. Hey, easy fix, we'll just up the FairTax to 30% inclusive. Right?
 
2008-04-15 05:03:46 PM  
IrateShadow:
... If the end result is the same tax revinue and no reduction of overhead why bother? Why spend the money to research a plan that would keep the status quo? Who does this plan actively benefit?


Did you not have to file taxes this year? How much time and money did you spend? Does it not bother you on a philosophical level that the government tracks every dollar you earn? It should be no more their business than it is yours how much money I make.

The fact that you can't see this points me back to my original post. You've been so conditioned with government all in your shiat all the time for so long you can't see that any rational person would have a problem with it.

It's not the government's farking business how much money I make. Just like it's none of your farking business. The only difference is I can tell you to rightfully fark off if you ask. The government can put me in jail for rightfully telling them to fark off.

/am I off topic yet?
//beer thirty guys - I'm out
///bringing power back to the people - that's what it's about
 
2008-04-15 05:05:25 PM  
The reduction in overhead is in the private sector. Businesses don't have to have tax attorneys. They don't have to move their headquarters overseas to escape our tax system. They can move back, create jobs, and take advantage of the proximity to increase revenue, not the tax evasion. I don't have to fill out a 10xx ever again. I don't have to have 3 seperate retirement accounts to keep from giving up my golden years. People dodging taxes, both the rich working the system and the poor living on social programs, start paying them again. It's fair.

And my favorite: lobbyists have drastically reduced incentive to buy conressional votes to benefit their respective companies. There is no more tax code to build credits for pet projects into. There are no more companies petitioning the government for special treatment.

I'll let that sink in...
On your second post:
Every time a company gave someone a raise, or matched their 401k, or covered their health care. Happy, experienced employees increase revenue too. I'll have to call "wealth envy" on that question.
 
2008-04-15 05:05:58 PM  
Came to see the morons that have not researched the proposal make shiat up (or change the terms of the proposal) in order to put the proposal down.
Was not disappointed.
 
2008-04-15 05:07:47 PM  
The bigger picture here is that the current system is farked, and there's no control that we, the people, have over the career politicians that just tax the bejeebus out of us any time they want.

I also think that withholding should be abolished immediately. Let everyone write a check to Uncle Sam like I did today (could have been a 20% down payment on a house in my town, 10% down of the house I really want to buy).

Everyone of you Obama supporters say you want change. Here it is, folks. Change in a big way. Change is what you're going to get - all that's left from your paycheck when Obama, Hillary and McCain are done with it.

But no, it will be business as usual, and you'll end up paying more for less like we always do, and you'll say, "Oh well, there's nothing we can do about it" and just go about biatching about those that really do want to make positive and real changes.

It's amazing how some of you demonize people that actually want to try to do something to eliminate big government that can't do anything right, yet you same people that think that government is the answer to everything. They've farked social security, they've farked medicare, they've farked prescription drugs, they've farked our schools, but you're so willing to let them take on health care.

Ren says, "You eeeediots!"
 
2008-04-15 05:08:33 PM  
zavier: And my favorite: lobbyists have drastically reduced incentive to buy conressional votes to benefit their respective companies. There is no more tax code to build credits for pet projects into. There are no more companies petitioning the government for special treatment.

Yes and no. My bigger complaint about lobbying is the awarding of contracts, subsidies and special regulations on things like environmental codes. This won't change that, but it's not supposed to.
 
2008-04-15 05:11:38 PM  
NuclearWinter: zavier: I'm talking about no federal tax withholdings, Social Security, or Medicare, not the payroll taxes they pay on your behalf.

Oh, and don't forget that since FairTax is "revenue neutral", there's still that pesky Social Security problem. Hey, easy fix, we'll just up the FairTax to 30% inclusive. Right?


Social Security and Medicare going bankrupt will require a massive reconning from every citizen regardless of the tax structure. That will not change. That is it's own battle.
 
2008-04-15 05:11:55 PM  
zavier: I'll let that sink in...
On your second post:
Every time a company gave someone a raise, or matched their 401k, or covered their health care. Happy, experienced employees increase revenue too. I'll have to call "wealth envy" on that question.


You have failed in any way to support the idea that a reduction in costs for the business would result in increased pay for workers. This is an extraordinary claim that needs extraordinary proof.

I completely agree about the need to end lobbyist incentive. The easiest way to do that is to end all corporate taxes, and remove the personhood of corporations.
 
2008-04-15 05:12:21 PM  
For your consideration;

If everything you bought had a 23% tax would you not buy less and save more if you had a choice? ie... those of us not living pay check to pay check.

Now if you lived pay check to pay check and you had to purchase more things, or more like have less money to purchase those same things, how do you think you would feel about that tax?

fair tax is great if you are not poor. If you poor you get to pay more. if you are rich you love this idea.
 
2008-04-15 05:12:55 PM  
zavier: The proposed federal sales tax is 23%.

elchip: Wrong. 23% is deceptive.

A $1 can of soup, after this tax, would be $1.30. It's a 30% tax on the base price of the good, but 30 cents is 23% of $1.30, the after-tax amount, which is how they get away with saying 23%.

zavier: You fail at math. $1.00 x 23% = $1.23.


zavier, you fail at math, 23% of $1.23 is $0.2829, 23% of $1.30 is $0.299. The way it was stated in the article was that it would be 23% taken out of the sale price, not 23% added to what they'd like to make (which it is now), the difference adds up.

Sadly you had me on your arguments until that point... points off for the fairtax hawks.
 
2008-04-15 05:23:49 PM  
NuclearWinter: zavier: I already told everyone that their rent and health bills would be taxed. You think they're not being taxed right now? Wow.

They're not, unless you're going to try to come up with some convoluted way of saying that rent or a doctors bill has "embedded taxes". How about the tax on a new home? Wouldn't you love to see your property value after that?

A doctor or hospital, unless it's a non-profit organization, pays corporate taxes and payroll taxes like any other company. The same goes for real estate. There are embedded taxes that will disappear. These vary from industry to industry because of our existing convoluted tax code.

Also please explain how $2,392 for a person will not cover refunding the tax only of the bare necessities up to the poverty level. It is not the government's role to provide for it's people but it is the government's responsibility to allow a basic quality of life without any hinderance.

2,392 a YEAR. Yes. With 30% tax on everything I pay for, that 200$/month will go REAL far. Right.

It'll go just far enough to reimburse that person for the taxes they would spend on life's necessities. It's not welfare. I don't know how else to say it.

Please explain as well how people's credit debt would be taxed under the Fair Tax plan. Isn't that money that they have already spent? Also remember that you're getting your whole paycheck to pay these bills. Maybe I just need a clarification on what you're getting at.

The FairTax taxes goods and SERVICES. The loan the credit card issuer gives you is a service, and thus the interest on the credit is taxable.

Private loan interest rates will re-establish themselves just like any other product. Debtors sell debt. It is their product. They pay corporate taxes and payroll taxes just like any other question on the profits they make selling their product. Their embedded taxes will disappear like all other industries'.

Also, the IRS will most likely not disappear completely. It will be drasically reduced though out of lack of need. If it doesn't, who cares? The Fair Taxes collected will be enough to pay for all of government in it's current state. Any reduction is just gravy.

So then what's the point? You can say it's to make it easier (but as it's been shown, even YOU (a proponent!) don't know what is or isn't taxable under FairTax), you can say it's to get rid of the IRS, but in the end, it boils down to this. It's good for high income earners, bad for everyone else. Call it class warfare, call it wealth envy, but you can't escape that fact.


Yes, I'm definitely seeing your class warfare agenda in your questions.
 
2008-04-15 05:27:37 PM  
Obdicut: zavier: I'll let that sink in...
On your second post:
Every time a company gave someone a raise, or matched their 401k, or covered their health care. Happy, experienced employees increase revenue too. I'll have to call "wealth envy" on that question.

You have failed in any way to support the idea that a reduction in costs for the business would result in increased pay for workers. This is an extraordinary claim that needs extraordinary proof.

Where did I claim that people's gross wages would increase? If I said that, I'll need to revisit that post.

I completely agree about the need to end lobbyist incentive. The easiest way to do that is to end all corporate taxes, and remove the personhood of corporations.


Indeed sir. This is the way and the light.
 
2008-04-15 05:30:58 PM  
I do have to say one thing... I compared what the government actually spends ($2.8 trillion Link (pops) ) to GDP (13.790 trillion Link (pops) ), and I got 20.3%.

So, at a glance, this 23% fair tax thing would be a zero sum for the country as a whole... just, every individual would have to adjust to how it affected them personally. Some people would get royally screwed (at least comparatively, in their own opinion), and some people's lives would become easier. I just wish I was more of an economist, able to figure out where the money is coming from now and where it would really be coming from under fairtax.
 
2008-04-15 05:37:48 PM  
SparkyRoosta: zavier: The proposed federal sales tax is 23%.

elchip: Wrong. 23% is deceptive.

A $1 can of soup, after this tax, would be $1.30. It's a 30% tax on the base price of the good, but 30 cents is 23% of $1.30, the after-tax amount, which is how they get away with saying 23%.

zavier: You fail at math. $1.00 x 23% = $1.23.


zavier, you fail at math, 23% of $1.23 is $0.2829, 23% of $1.30 is $0.299. The way it was stated in the article was that it would be 23% taken out of the sale price, not 23% added to what they'd like to make (which it is now), the difference adds up.

Sadly you had me on your arguments until that point... points off for the fairtax hawks.


The portion I underlined was not part of my post, it was a quote. I got screwed up on my bold/italics, who's-who's notation.
 
2008-04-15 05:48:14 PM  
zavier:

Private loan interest rates will re-establish themselves just like any other product. Debtors sell debt. It is their product. They pay corporate taxes and payroll taxes just like any other question company on the profits they make selling their product. Their embedded taxes will disappear like all other industries'.


FTFM

/readingwhiletyping
 
2008-04-15 05:50:39 PM  
zavier: Where did I claim that people's gross wages would increase? If I said that, I'll need to revisit that post.

Sorry, you didn't. You did say that employers would do with that savings whatever they wanted to. My apologies for lumping you in with others; you obviously do know that net income for the employees would not rise at all.

However, I'm still going to castigate you for not doing the math on my previous example.
 
2008-04-15 05:55:17 PM  
zavier:
The portion I underlined was not part of my post, it was a quote. I got screwed up on my bold/italics, who's-who's notation.


I didn't think the above underlined part was something you said. I tried to fix the atribution of the conversation parts.

I was just pointing out the variance of adding 23% to vs taking 23% out of something. Our current local sales taxes works by adding the 7% (or whatever local %) to something.

So comparing a $100 item with 23% added would cost $123. But taking 23% of $123 is $28.29 an extra $5.29.

That's assuming that the company would need to add the tax to the items vs leaving the prices where they are and taking a tax savings from payroll taxes and such...

/have a headache now
//should probably get back to work
///think I cost my employer 23% of my productivity today
 
2008-04-15 05:57:27 PM  
Obdicut: zavier: Where did I claim that people's gross wages would increase? If I said that, I'll need to revisit that post.

Sorry, you didn't. You did say that employers would do with that savings whatever they wanted to. My apologies for lumping you in with others; you obviously do know that net income for the employees would not rise at all.

However, I'm still going to castigate you for not doing the math on my previous example.


Math is hard and more importatly, it's almost 5:00. Check back later bro, and I'll see what I can figure up.
 
2008-04-15 06:01:37 PM  
And Obama is the guy being pegged as an elitist:

DELTA/NORTHWEST MERGER

Perhaps the strangest comment I've heard on this merger was a complaint that the Delta management didn't consult the baggage handlers. Baggage handlers? Are you freaking kidding me? Can't you just see the Delta CEO walking out on the ramp and up to a bagbuster and saying "Hey ... lemme ask you something. We're thinking of merging with Northwest Airlines. Would that be OK with you?"
...


When a "librul" says it, it's elitist, but when a "conservative" says it, it's just straight-shootin'.

Also, that tax "article" sucked my hairy nuts. Not amusing, no good ideas for messing with coworkers.
 
2008-04-15 06:22:14 PM  
All but a couple of you are even educated on this issue. Defending the current tax system is, to put it mildly, completely farking insane. The current tax system utterly flies in the face of the Constitution (as it was written, not as it was written on in red ink) and bloats the government based on ridiculously socialist principles. If you're a socialist, go ahead and defend the system...it lines up with your ideas. If you're in any way in support of liberty and fair taxation, you have to agree that the current tax system doesn't work. (I'm not for or against the fair tax, but I'm dead set against personal income tax)
 
2008-04-15 06:23:45 PM  
The FairTax is a good idea. It's an embedded sales tax, not on top of what you get now.

Before FairTax: Your "salary" is 50k.. errr 40k after taxes
After FairTax: Your salary is 50k + you get prebate a month.

Think about it.. you put the economy in the hands of the consumers.. if someone tries to jack up their price on Product A (the typical argument from you retards who know nothing about the FairTax), then a competing company will sell more of their version of Product A.

You elminate the need for the IRS, and government revenue is strictly based on consumerism.. what's our great country based on? cell phones, ipods, computers, an pr0n.. it's a win-win!

Read Boortz's books before you judge. At least there's someone out there THINKING of something else!
 
2008-04-15 06:26:38 PM  
elchip: A $1 can of soup, after this tax, would be $1.30. It's a 30% tax on the base price of the good, but 30 cents is 23% of $1.30, the after-tax amount, which is how they get away with saying 23%.

If a product costs $1 at retail .... It costs $1, with the FairTax already included. This is so easy to understand, you almost get the idea that people are intentionally trying to confuse the facts here. That $1 item elchip is referring to costs $1 at retail today! But instead of including the FairTax in that price, all of the embedded taxes from every business and individual involved in bringing that item to the marketplace are included. You remove one, you add the other. And that bit about 30 percent to the federal government on top of the purchase price of your new home? Another lie. The embedded taxes are so high on the price of a new home today that when they are removed and the FairTax added, that home could be a percent or two cheaper! Come on, folks. This really isn't that hard. Let's try to spell this out plainly for everyone:
The 23 percent FairTax is not added to the price of everything you buy ... it is already included in the price of everything you will buy, just as the embedded taxes are included today. You remove one, you add the other.*


*Taken from Boortz with a couple of name changes.
 
2008-04-15 09:46:43 PM  
that whole link just rained stupid on my head.
 
2008-04-15 10:13:13 PM  
Why do all conservative pundits smirk? It's irritating.

What I find amusing about the Fair Tax is the idea that we will be able to stick it to the IRS and boot all those bastards out on the street, while ignoring the massively larger bureaucracy that will have to be instituted in order to rebate VATs to low income people on a monthly basis. Of course, they're counting on large numbers of the poor being too stupid to claim their rebates. Win/win!

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." -- Anatole France
 
2008-04-15 10:37:19 PM  
Call Roni Deutch!!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=6eTl1BWQtPs&fmt=18
 
2008-04-16 03:29:19 AM  
ez2plezy

WayToBlue

The point that guy is trying to make is people talk in terms of what they actually take home because so much of what we actually earn is turn directly over to the IRS to mismanage and screw up. Come on buddy you know you look at your paycheck and wish like the rest of us that those couple hundred extra dollars every week were yours and not the govt.


His point is stupid and obvious, as are you.

But hey stay classy with the 6th grade name calling douche.

As opposed to your constructive comments . . .
 
2008-04-16 04:24:33 AM  
JoeJitsu: bfriend13: You know what should be green lit? That link on Boortz' site to the speech by Annette Kesting, the first black woman to be elected to the Cobb County (Georgia) Commission. That woman is a piece of work.
SNL could learn from Annette.

Kesting Press Conference

That's what I came here to say. Pure comedy gold!

/can't believe that anyone would vote for this dope


She might as well have scrawled the words of her speech on somebody's sweaty back. I don't know who she is, being new to Cobb, but I'm not thrilled with the county overall. I found it interesting how she says she's not playing the race card, yet does it numerous times during her presentation. Even the person who introduced her did so by saying "the first African American..."

... which I defer to Mr. Smokey Robinson via Def Poetry Jam.
 
2008-04-16 09:46:04 AM  
clambam: Why do all conservative pundits smirk? It's irritating.

What I find amusing about the Fair Tax is the idea that we will be able to stick it to the IRS and boot all those bastards out on the street, while ignoring the massively larger bureaucracy that will have to be instituted in order to rebate VATs to low income people on a monthly basis. Of course, they're counting on large numbers of the poor being too stupid to claim their rebates. Win/win!

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." -- Anatole France


Please, our government is a finely tuned check-writing machine.

First off, most people won't receive checks. It will be a monthly set it and forget it electronic transfer. Remember, the prebate is based only on body count in a household. Only birth, death, or marriage will cause the prebate amounts to change unless you can asexually reproduce.

They already send out about 48 million social security checks. They also send checks to all government employees (and a lot of ex-government employees) and contractors as it is. The only reason the stimulus checks are dragging out more than a month is that it's a one-off event. Notice that the electronic transfers are all happening on a pre-set date.
 
2008-04-16 10:06:42 AM  
Obdicut: zavier:

You didn't actually answer the question.

Here's a question for you:

Person A is a low-income worker making $29,000 a year. He spends $20,000 every year, on food, power, clothing, car stuff, rent. He spends $4,000 on consumer products aside from car stuff, and manages to save $5,000 a year, since he's cool and frugal.

Person B is a wealthy COO of a corporation, who gets much of his pay in the form of stock options. He makes $140,000 cash, plus $250,000 worth of stock options each year. He spends about $80,000 per year on food, power, clothing, car stuff, rent, $20,000 on luxuries like travel and consumer goods, and invests $290,000 each year (stock options + his disposable investment).

Who will benefit more from the Fair Tax, even assuming that all the food, power, clothing, car stuff, and rent are called "necessities"?


Ok, I started to do the math for you here and lo and behold Boortz's prediction has come true on how people perceive their withholding.

When you put "makes $X" and then break out how it is all spent, you are spending all that each person "makes" in your examples. You haven't accounted for the current withholding (openly.)

Do you mean that person A makes ~34,000 and person B makes ~200,000 before their respective income tax brackets take 15% and 30% from them? Notice that's 5k and 60k (yikes!) that vanishes.

We're so used to pretending this amount isn't there that we forget about it, even when we're talking about money.
 
2008-04-16 11:46:23 AM  
zavier: Who will benefit more from the Fair Tax, even assuming that all the food, power, clothing, car stuff, and rent are called "necessities"?

Ok, I started to do the math for you here and lo and behold Boortz's prediction has come true on how people perceive their withholding.

When you put "makes $X" and then break out how it is all spent, you are spending all that each person "makes" in your examples. You haven't accounted for the current withholding (openly.)

Do you mean that person A makes ~34,000 and person B makes ~200,000 before their respective income tax brackets take 15% and 30% from them? Notice that's 5k and 60k (yikes!) that vanishes.

We're so used to pretending this amount isn't there that we forget about it, even when we're talking about money.



A)) You're acting as though the current tax has no exceptions to it whatsoever, while simultaneously crediting the fair taxes exceptions. This is massively disingenuous.

B) Feel free to talk about how much more the wealthier person would benefit from the Fair Tax, since that's the point I was trying to make. It really does show who benefits from the Fair Tax much better, if you mention the 5k and 60k "vanishing". Thank you for proving my point.
 
2008-04-16 01:09:13 PM  
Excellent! You're still checking this thread.

A) I'm not going to do a 1040A for each of these people. If you want me to adjust my numbers and add say, the standard deduction ($3500) or maybe some child tax credits, I would just be reducing the projected incomes since the amounts you have spent for each person are set and this is obviously their take-home.

B) Yes, this guy will get that 60k back, but if I finish the rest of the formula, he'll be paying 18.4k in taxes on his utilities, 4600 on "luxuries" as you put it (wealth envy :P), and zilch on his investments instead of the 15% capital gains he would be getting on his 60,000-ish in dividends and interest. Even less! Wild!

Looks like your poor guy is going to pay 5,520 in taxes instead of 5,000. He'll be doing it with 2,392 coming back to him and he'll be doing it with his whole paycheck.

Your rich guy will be paying 23k instead of 60k. Sweet deal! That's the point of the FairTax. If he wants to make all the money in the world and stick it in his ears, he won't owe much to the government to do that. You show me the guy that only spends 14% of his annual income, though. That's where I call BS on your imaginary rich guy. He'll consume much more than that and therefore pay quite a bit more in taxes.
 
2008-04-16 03:09:30 PM  
zavier: Your rich guy will be paying 23k instead of 60k. Sweet deal! That's the point of the FairTax. If he wants to make all the money in the world and stick it in his ears, he won't owe much to the government to do that. You show me the guy that only spends 14% of his annual income, though. That's where I call BS on your imaginary rich guy. He'll consume much more than that and therefore pay quite a bit more in taxes.

Do you remember the question that I asked, and your answer, that led to this math?

I asked who benefited more. You asserted the poorer guy did. You have now demonstrated that the richer guy benefits far, far more.

If you want to assert that, philosophically, he should be allowed to benefit more, that's fine.

But don't assert that the poorer guy actually benefits more. At least be honest here.

You also have included the phrase "he'll be doing it with his whole paycheck", even though you have distanced yourself from the assertion that the fair tax would have any effect on the actual net take-home pay of the worker. Are you now asserting that their actual net take-home pay would increase?
 
Displayed 50 of 200 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report