Re: My take on the flawed "Fair Tax" (repost)


"js" <jonathansmith99@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1129064793.981820.271880@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

AllYou! wrote:
"js" <jonathansmith99@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1129051394.938678.272720@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> AllYou! wrote:
>> "js" <jonathansmith99@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:1129040114.277421.14810@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >
>> > AllYou! wrote:
>> >> "js" <jonathansmith99@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> >> news:1128988178.548502.131750@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >> > Snipped all the stuff that just doesn't make a difference anymore -
>> >> > transitions are hell.
>> >>
>> >> You mean your snipped the part where I asked you for the justification >> >> of
>> >> the
>> >> rebate.
>> >
>> > No - I snipped the part where we argue in circles about why transition
>> > adjustments are necessary.
>> >
>> >> You're rebating something, correct?
>> >
>> > Yes.
>> >
>> >> Let me take a wild stab and guess
>> >> that you're rebating previously paid taxes, right?
>> >
>> > Wrong
>> >
>> >> What taxes?
>> >
>> > NST
>>
>> So you're rebating taxes that were never paid?
>
> Nope - I am rebating NST taxes that have been paid.

WOW!  Lots of questions:

Why rebate a tax that's never existed? 

Excuse me?  NST exists in my world and its added right on top of the
old transaction price.  Visible and very very clear.

Now you're just evading. Why not just answer the question. You're proposing a rebate based upon the fact that exisitng assets were purchased with taxed dollars. How does this fact justify a rebate?

Do you now agree that consumers truly pay the tax and therefore, employees never
paid it?
Or do you claim taxes were paid twice? 

Doesn't matter - I told you that.  How you account for it is not my
concern.  I think your accountuing is bull - so be it.  I don't care.
It doesn't matter.

Just more evasions. You know and I know that you've lost this debate on every front. You came out absolutely convinced in your rebate scheme, and now that you've lost all of the arguments which were the basis of the scheme, you simply refuse to engage. *You* believed it mattered enough with your initial justifications for the rebate to argue the point over and over again, but now that it's obvious your arguments simply didn't hold together, you claim it doesn't matter. And you wonder why I've concluded that you're as disingenuous as they come here in Usenet? There it is, right there.

You have no honor.


If all taxes were always paid at the pump, then why rebate at all?

Your world, not mine. 

Lack of response, as well as lack of honor noted.  Why rebate at all?

>> >> Another
>> >> WAG.......income taxes?  Hmmmmmmmm.
>> >
>> > NO, you haven't been listening.
>> > Follow the logic.
>>
>> Is that like following the money, regardless of whether we're following
>> ownership or possestion?
>
> Don't care.

Smooooooooth.

You bet. 

I'm sure you take pride in that lack of self-respect and honor.


>> > There are assets in people's possession that have
>> > already been subject to a Federal "income" tax.
>>
>> But you said that doesn't matter. Remember? The status quo doesn't >> matter,
>> therefore, your argument just failed. Or does the status quo only matter
>> when
>> you make an argument, and when I refute that very aregument, it doersn't
>> matter
>> anymore? Now that's logic.
>
> I asked you not to put words in my mouth and again you need to do it to
> prove some irrational argument.

I didn't. That's exactly what you've said. 

Lack of response noted.


> I said "You can assume whatever you want about how accounting happens
> under the status quo."
>
> Here is a practical examle of what "it doesn't matter" means:
>
> You said: "So unless you want to make the argument that two parties can
> have concurrent claims to the same money, it's actually their money.
> To claim otherwise is to once again fall for the magic trick."
>
> To which I replied:
>
> "It doesn't matter.  The asset is owned by me and until I elect to
> spend
> it, it is still owned by me.  The fact that there is PITAX is the only
> reason why the government has a possible future claim.  The governmant
> and I do not have concurrent claims.  The government has NO claim UNTIL
>
> the asset is converted.  But again, it really doesn't matter."
>
> The accounting is immaterial.

You've been saying that the status quo doesn't matter to a number of arguments
I've made, not the least of which is who actually pays the tax under the current
system. So do you now agree that it does matter who pays the tax under the
current system?

Whatever - does it matter? Not to me.

But you just used that fact in your argument. How truly pathetic you've become. You're in the same league with Marcello, P. Thomas, and all the rest of their ilk.


>> >  This tax has been
>> > transfered to the government by some party - you pick who.  As such,
>> > these assets have now been assigned "after tax" status. Got it?
>>
>> Yup.  Status quo is in play at this point.  IOW, you're rebating the PIT.
>
> Nope - I'm advocating the exemption of certain categories of assets
> turned consumption FROM NST.  It has nothing to do with PITAX.  I will,
> as a convenience, use "old" PITAX definitions as the basis for
> determining the type of asset turned consumption to exempt from NST.

What complete gibberish. See the avove questions.

I looked avove and all I found was a avaffle. 

I'm sure you feel that way.

> Solves the problem of transition. Solves the problem of accounting.
> Solves the problem about who paid what when.  It's simply a definition
> question and the definition is presented in the 70,000 of PITAX regs
> YOU want to continue.

And I've asked you not to lie, and yet you continue to do so. Why is that? Why
are you compelled to constantly lie and mischaracterize my position? Is that
all you've got? How pathetic you've become. 

Hey, your words, not mine.  Ok, so do you want to get rid of the rule
book on the day we go to NST?  Or not?  Or what?

You know, and I know, that one of the options to which I referred was to allow one, narrow provision of the PIT to play itself out in accordance with initial expectations, and not to extend the entire case. Yet, despite that fact, you try to create the impression that I'm advocating extending the entire PIT code. That's a simply lie. You've also tries to create the impression that I've said that this is the only viable solution, and yet you know that's a lie as well.

You cling to this one facet of my argument that there's no need for the massive, complex, destructive, unfair, and totally unjustifiable rebate program you've advocated as though by keeping the lie alive, you've vindicated your argument. Like I said, no honor, no self-respect.


>> >  You do
>> > realize that there are assets like that already and under PITAX, they
>> > don't get taxed again, right?
>>
>> All purchses get taxed.
>
> Sure - why not.  And you have stated that in pre-NST all of these taxes
> are imbedded and post NST all are excommunicated?

More gibberish. I'm saying that both with the current system and the NST, all
taxes are in the cost of all purchases. The only difference is that with the
NST, it's finally out in the open.

Wonderful - now it's gibberish if you can't refute it.

You claimed that I said something I did not, and to show that I did not, I restated what I've always maintained. No, I can't prove a negative. But what's interesting is that you can't prove the allegation.


Out in the open?  In youer world the price at the pump is still $1 and
by some miracle the tax finds it's way back to the government.  In
mine, it's $1.30 and the 30 cents is sent in by the retailer.

More nonsense. Your intermixing what I claimed happens under the PIT to what we both claim would happen under the NST. But even at that, you remove yourself from the dabte to claim that it doesn't matter, yet you once again raise the issue. Very sad indeed.


>> >> But I thought you also claimed that it
>> >> doesn't matter who paid the taxes. Well, if it doesn't, then tell me >> >> why
>> >> a
>> >> rebate again?
>> >
>> > Because the asset has been subject to taxes and these taxes have been
>> > remitted to the government.
>>
>> They've been subject to taxes uner the status quo. So why is the status >> quo
>> irrelevant again?
>
> It's not. 

The rules are relevant.  The stastus quo is relevant to show
transitions.  What is wrong with you?

Yet every time I use it for that purpose, you claim that because it's the status quo, it doesn't matter. In fact even when your use your view of the status quo as the baseline for the transistion, and I refute your view, you then claim that the status quo doesn't matter. Your arguments have been defeated at every turn, and all you've got left is this shake and bake routine.


[snip more of your evasions]

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: My take on the flawed "Fair Tax" (repost)
    ... >>> that you're rebating previously paid taxes, ... > But you said that doesn't matter. ... Nope - I'm advocating the exemption of certain categories of assets ... It has nothing to do with PITAX. ...
    (misc.taxes)
  • Re: My take on the flawed "Fair Tax" (repost)
    ... > Snipped all the stuff that just doesn't make a difference anymore - ... that you're rebating previously paid taxes, ... Or does the status quo only matter when you make an argument, and when I refute that very aregument, it doersn't matter anymore? ... these assets have now been assigned "after tax" status. ...
    (misc.taxes)
  • Re: Activation stinks because I cant reinstall....
    ... Whether Microsoft could have a better system or not is a different matter. ... You or your companies failure to maintain adequate inventories of you assets ... Also record any license numbers. ... > out something stupid that MS has done. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Obamas Middle-Class Tax Pledge
    ... from any tax. ... Mind over matter, if you don't mind, it don't matter. ... No new taxes." ... While it's become apparent that all of President Obama's campaign pledges came with expiration dates, there is no reason to believe that breaking his campaign pledge of shielding everyone making less than $250,000 from increased taxes, will not have the same result. ...
    (misc.news.internet.discuss)
  • Re: ID or Id?
    ... It doesnt' really matter, ... I have am using SQL Server and Entity Framework to create my Entities. ... On my SQL code I have: ... create table Assets ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.programming)