Huckabee is still lying about the “fairtax”

[ogibillm]

Sounds like the same plan, the 23% percent quoted was stated in terms of how folks are use to state and local sales tax working.

A retailer needing a $100 return on an item would need to collect $123 from the customer and then give 19% of that ($23) to government.

Actually no, the government would get 19 dollars, not 19%.

Actually the H.R.25 - FairTax Act of 2015 calls fort a 23% of the retailer's gross. Thus for a return of $100 he'll need to collect $129.87 from the buyer.

SEC. 101. Imposition of sales tax.
(a) In General.—There is hereby imposed a tax on the use or consumption in the United States of taxable property or services.
(b) Rate.—
(1) FOR 2017.—In the calendar year 2017, the rate of tax is 23 percent of the gross payments for the taxable property or service.

Where did the other 6.87% come from?

math.

Must be that fuzzy math we keep hearing about, because 23% of $100.00 is $23.00 not $29.87.

it was explained fairly well - if you were to charge me $123 for an item and then give 23% of that sale price to the government as a tax you'd be left with $123*.77=$94.71
the fair tax requires that taxes are collected on the gross

it's math.

 

[g5000]

Sounds like the same plan, the 23% percent quoted was stated in terms of how folks are use to state and local sales tax working.

A retailer needing a $100 return on an item would need to collect $123 from the customer and then give 19% of that ($23) to government.

Actually no, the government would get 19 dollars, not 19%.

Actually the H.R.25 - FairTax Act of 2015 calls fort a 23% of the retailer's gross. Thus for a return of $100 he'll need to collect $129.87 from the buyer.

SEC. 101. Imposition of sales tax.
(a) In General.—There is hereby imposed a tax on the use or consumption in the United States of taxable property or services.
(b) Rate.—
(1) FOR 2017.—In the calendar year 2017, the rate of tax is 23 percent of the gross payments for the taxable property or service.

Where did the other 6.87% come from?

math.

Must be that fuzzy math we keep hearing about, because 23% of $100.00 is $23.00 not $29.87.

Nope. Not fuzzy math. Its your innumeracy.

Multiply 129.87 times 0.23, then subtract that amount from 129.87 and see how much you have left. That will be your return.

 

[pinqy]

Well, they never intended to let non-whites become citizens either

Um...OK? Make up shit much?

Well, sure. But not this time

United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof ...

Only Whites could become citizens until the 13th amendment. Asians were still disallowed from naturalization until the 1930's (maybe the 20's)

 

[kaz]

Sounds like the same plan, the 23% percent quoted was stated in terms of how folks are use to state and local sales tax working.

A retailer needing a $100 return on an item would need to collect $123 from the customer and then give 19% of that ($23) to government.

Actually no, the government would get 19 dollars, not 19%.

Actually the H.R.25 - FairTax Act of 2015 calls fort a 23% of the retailer's gross. Thus for a return of $100 he'll need to collect $129.87 from the buyer.

SEC. 101. Imposition of sales tax.
(a) In General.—There is hereby imposed a tax on the use or consumption in the United States of taxable property or services.
(b) Rate.—
(1) FOR 2017.—In the calendar year 2017, the rate of tax is 23 percent of the gross payments for the taxable property or service.

Where did the other 6.87% come from?

math.

Must be that fuzzy math we keep hearing about, because 23% of $100.00 is $23.00 not $29.87.

Actually, the 23% tax refers to that for a $100 bill, $23 of that would be fair tax. So if you calculate it like sales tax, that would be 23/77 = 29.87%.

The ignorant like to moan and flip out about that, which makes no sense because no matter how you calculate it, it's what we are paying now. The idea is when you go to the store you get a tax included price. Which is the same thing that business taxes work anyway.

 

[kaz]

It isn't figured like state and local sales tax which is based on the cost of the item but rather is based on the total amount the retailer or service provider receives. Thus $129.87 is the tax base, not $100.

But my main objection with tax is that out-of-pocket medical service is taxed. Likewise childcare and elder care.

Once you open the door to exemptions, the system is corrupted.

Exactly, the whole point is a simple all inclusive tax

 

[johnwk]

During the first presidential debate Mike Huckabee once again touted the fairtax proposal, and once again Mike Huckabee has lied about the “fairtax” (see H.R.25 - FairTax Act of 2015. Unfortunately our media personalities will not ask him to support his contentions about the fairtax
.
Huckabee alleges the fairtax would close down the IRS and would replace our current system with a consumption tax. But the truth is, when one takes the time to actually read and study the fairtax legislation, quite the contrary is true.

The fair tax proposes to create two new taxes, a 23 percent tax upon the sale of articles of consumption and another 23 percent tax upon the sale of labor while keeping alive Congress’ power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other lawfully earned incomes.

In fact, Huckabee’s fairtax would create two new tax collecting agencies, an “Excise Tax Bureau” and the “Sales Tax Bureau, in addition to keeping the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms alive which will also be collecting taxes.

It should also be noted that under Huckabee’s “fairtax” ordinary working people who dare to sell the property they have in their own labor are required to register with the federal government and file federal fairtax returns under the penalty of perjury 12 times a freaken year, and they will be compelled to keep any records Congress may dream up, not to mention the threat of audits which will constantly haunt them.

It should also be noted Huckabee’s fairtax proposes to create a new entitlement called the “FAMILY CONSUMPTION ALLOWANCE” under which qualified families will receive a monthly check to pay for a rationed amount of tax free necessities of life, which in turn would make a whole new block of voters with limited economic means extremely dependent upon the federal government for a monthly subsistence check!

If Mike Huckabee were sincere in wanting to force Congress to move to a consumption tax, and end all federal taxes calculated from profits, gains and other lawfully earned “incomes”, and he really wanted to close down the IRS, he would be promoting the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment which begins with the following 32 words:


“SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.

Those words would in fact force Congress to return to a consumption based tax system (imposts, duties and excise taxes), and would actually end all federal taxes calculated from lawfully earned profits, gains and other "incomes"!

JWK




“…..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities“. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address

You just told a whopper of a lie yourself in this post.

I will wait to see if anyone else spots it.

If you want to make a point, make it. Nobody's playing your games.

I'm still waiting for him to make his point.


JWK

The whopper lie you told was about the family consumption allowance. The prebate is not just for people "with limited economic means". That's a lie.

You didn't even bother reading the bill to which you linked, and clearly don't know anything about how the Fair Tax works. The prebate is for everyone.

Even billionaires would receive the family consumption allowance.


As for the 16th Amendment, if you read your own link, you will find it abolishes income taxes, payroll taxes, estate taxes, and gift taxes, and at the very end it says:

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.

So you finally admit, and even document, that I am correct. The fact is, if the fairtax is adopted it does not end Congress' power to lay and collect taxes calculated from incomes.

JWK

 

[johnwk]

During the first presidential debate Mike Huckabee once again touted the fairtax proposal, and once again Mike Huckabee has lied about the “fairtax” (see H.R.25 - FairTax Act of 2015. Unfortunately our media personalities will not ask him to support his contentions about the fairtax
.
Huckabee alleges the fairtax would close down the IRS and would replace our current system with a consumption tax. But the truth is, when one takes the time to actually read and study the fairtax legislation, quite the contrary is true.

The fair tax proposes to create two new taxes, a 23 percent tax upon the sale of articles of consumption and another 23 percent tax upon the sale of labor while keeping alive Congress’ power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other lawfully earned incomes.

In fact, Huckabee’s fairtax would create two new tax collecting agencies, an “Excise Tax Bureau” and the “Sales Tax Bureau, in addition to keeping the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms alive which will also be collecting taxes.

It should also be noted that under Huckabee’s “fairtax” ordinary working people who dare to sell the property they have in their own labor are required to register with the federal government and file federal fairtax returns under the penalty of perjury 12 times a freaken year, and they will be compelled to keep any records Congress may dream up, not to mention the threat of audits which will constantly haunt them.

It should also be noted Huckabee’s fairtax proposes to create a new entitlement called the “FAMILY CONSUMPTION ALLOWANCE” under which qualified families will receive a monthly check to pay for a rationed amount of tax free necessities of life, which in turn would make a whole new block of voters with limited economic means extremely dependent upon the federal government for a monthly subsistence check!

If Mike Huckabee were sincere in wanting to force Congress to move to a consumption tax, and end all federal taxes calculated from profits, gains and other lawfully earned “incomes”, and he really wanted to close down the IRS, he would be promoting the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment which begins with the following 32 words:


“SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.

Those words would in fact force Congress to return to a consumption based tax system (imposts, duties and excise taxes), and would actually end all federal taxes calculated from lawfully earned profits, gains and other "incomes"!

JWK




“…..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities“. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address

You just told a whopper of a lie yourself in this post.

I will wait to see if anyone else spots it.

If you want to make a point, make it. Nobody's playing your games.

I'm still waiting for him to make his point.


JWK

The whopper lie you told was about the family consumption allowance. The prebate is not just for people "with limited economic means". That's a lie.

What I actually wrote was:

It should also be noted Huckabee’s fairtax proposes to create a new entitlement called the “FAMILY CONSUMPTION ALLOWANCE” under which qualified families will receive a monthly check to pay for a rationed amount of tax free necessities of life, which in turn would make a whole new block of voters with limited economic means extremely dependent upon the federal government for a monthly subsistence check!

I never even suggested the Family Consumption Allowance is limited to people "with limited economic means". But those with limited economic means receiving the FCA will become dependent upon it to the degree of being encouraged to vote for pinkos who promise to increase the allowance.

The only one lying here is you!


JWK

 

[OKTexas]

Actually no, the government would get 19 dollars, not 19%.

Actually the H.R.25 - FairTax Act of 2015 calls fort a 23% of the retailer's gross. Thus for a return of $100 he'll need to collect $129.87 from the buyer.

SEC. 101. Imposition of sales tax.
(a) In General.—There is hereby imposed a tax on the use or consumption in the United States of taxable property or services.
(b) Rate.—
(1) FOR 2017.—In the calendar year 2017, the rate of tax is 23 percent of the gross payments for the taxable property or service.

Where did the other 6.87% come from?

math.

Must be that fuzzy math we keep hearing about, because 23% of $100.00 is $23.00 not $29.87.

it was explained fairly well - if you were to charge me $123 for an item and then give 23% of that sale price to the government as a tax you'd be left with $123*.77=$94.71
the fair tax requires that taxes are collected on the gross

it's math.

Right, tax is added to the total sale, it's separate. If I buy something now for 100 and my state sales tax is 8.25% I pay 108.25, the business sends just the 8.25 to the state, not 8.25% of the 108.25. Never ran a business have you?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

So what? The Fair Tax is never going to pass anyway.

 

[kaz]

Actually the H.R.25 - FairTax Act of 2015 calls fort a 23% of the retailer's gross. Thus for a return of $100 he'll need to collect $129.87 from the buyer.

SEC. 101. Imposition of sales tax.
(a) In General.—There is hereby imposed a tax on the use or consumption in the United States of taxable property or services.
(b) Rate.—
(1) FOR 2017.—In the calendar year 2017, the rate of tax is 23 percent of the gross payments for the taxable property or service.

Where did the other 6.87% come from?

math.

Must be that fuzzy math we keep hearing about, because 23% of $100.00 is $23.00 not $29.87.

it was explained fairly well - if you were to charge me $123 for an item and then give 23% of that sale price to the government as a tax you'd be left with $123*.77=$94.71
the fair tax requires that taxes are collected on the gross

it's math.

Right, tax is added to the total sale, it's separate. If I buy something now for 100 and my state sales tax is 8.25% I pay 108.25, the business sends just the 8.25 to the state, not 8.25% of the 108.25. Never ran a business have you?

I don't understand why you're stuck on this. How you said it is how current State sales taxes are calculated, sure, you're completely correct. But it's not how the Fair Tax is calculated. You can use 23% as part of the sales price or 29.87% added to the sales price. Either way, it's calculated to be revenue neutral. I don't understand why the fair tax not being calculated the same way as State Sales taxes currently are calculated bothers you.

The advantage of the way the fair tax does it is that when you walk into a store, the price you see is the price you pay. You don't need to calculate how much more sales tax you have to pay. It's built in. Wouldn't you prefer to see prices that way?

 

[OKTexas]

Actually no, the government would get 19 dollars, not 19%.

Actually the H.R.25 - FairTax Act of 2015 calls fort a 23% of the retailer's gross. Thus for a return of $100 he'll need to collect $129.87 from the buyer.

SEC. 101. Imposition of sales tax.
(a) In General.—There is hereby imposed a tax on the use or consumption in the United States of taxable property or services.
(b) Rate.—
(1) FOR 2017.—In the calendar year 2017, the rate of tax is 23 percent of the gross payments for the taxable property or service.

Where did the other 6.87% come from?

math.

Must be that fuzzy math we keep hearing about, because 23% of $100.00 is $23.00 not $29.87.

Actually, the 23% tax refers to that for a $100 bill, $23 of that would be fair tax. So if you calculate it like sales tax, that would be 23/77 = 29.87%.

The ignorant like to moan and flip out about that, which makes no sense because no matter how you calculate it, it's what we are paying now. The idea is when you go to the store you get a tax included price. Which is the same thing that business taxes work anyway.

Take another look at his example, it's not calculated that way. He says there would be 29.87 on a 100.00 sale.

 

[kaz]

So what? The Fair Tax is never going to pass anyway.

Not much of a salesman as a mod for a political site if you think we should only discuss what will actually pass.

I agree with you though because neither party remotely wants a tax code they can't manipulate to sell influence to fund their campaigns

 

[kaz]

Actually the H.R.25 - FairTax Act of 2015 calls fort a 23% of the retailer's gross. Thus for a return of $100 he'll need to collect $129.87 from the buyer.

SEC. 101. Imposition of sales tax.
(a) In General.—There is hereby imposed a tax on the use or consumption in the United States of taxable property or services.
(b) Rate.—
(1) FOR 2017.—In the calendar year 2017, the rate of tax is 23 percent of the gross payments for the taxable property or service.

Where did the other 6.87% come from?

math.

Must be that fuzzy math we keep hearing about, because 23% of $100.00 is $23.00 not $29.87.

Actually, the 23% tax refers to that for a $100 bill, $23 of that would be fair tax. So if you calculate it like sales tax, that would be 23/77 = 29.87%.

The ignorant like to moan and flip out about that, which makes no sense because no matter how you calculate it, it's what we are paying now. The idea is when you go to the store you get a tax included price. Which is the same thing that business taxes work anyway.

Take another look at his example, it's not calculated that way. He says there would be 29.87 on a 100.00 sale.

I agree the way he phrased it left room for misunderstanding, but what he is saying is if as a retailer you want to clear $100 after taxes, you need to charge $129.87 for the item. Then you pay a 23% fair tax and you get net $100 after taxes.

Make sense?

 

[OKTexas]

Where did the other 6.87% come from?

math.

Must be that fuzzy math we keep hearing about, because 23% of $100.00 is $23.00 not $29.87.

Actually, the 23% tax refers to that for a $100 bill, $23 of that would be fair tax. So if you calculate it like sales tax, that would be 23/77 = 29.87%.

The ignorant like to moan and flip out about that, which makes no sense because no matter how you calculate it, it's what we are paying now. The idea is when you go to the store you get a tax included price. Which is the same thing that business taxes work anyway.

Take another look at his example, it's not calculated that way. He says there would be 29.87 on a 100.00 sale.

I agree the way he phrased it left room for misunderstanding, but what he is saying is if as a retailer you want to clear $100 after taxes, you need to charge $129.87 for the item. Then you pay a 23% fair tax and you get net $100 after taxes.

Make sense?

If you totally ignore how taxes are actually calculated and collected. The taxes are not taxed, well unless taxes are already built into the product like cigarettes, then your charged sales tax on the state and federal excise taxes.

 

[kaz]

math.

Must be that fuzzy math we keep hearing about, because 23% of $100.00 is $23.00 not $29.87.

Actually, the 23% tax refers to that for a $100 bill, $23 of that would be fair tax. So if you calculate it like sales tax, that would be 23/77 = 29.87%.

The ignorant like to moan and flip out about that, which makes no sense because no matter how you calculate it, it's what we are paying now. The idea is when you go to the store you get a tax included price. Which is the same thing that business taxes work anyway.

Take another look at his example, it's not calculated that way. He says there would be 29.87 on a 100.00 sale.

I agree the way he phrased it left room for misunderstanding, but what he is saying is if as a retailer you want to clear $100 after taxes, you need to charge $129.87 for the item. Then you pay a 23% fair tax and you get net $100 after taxes.

Make sense?

If you totally ignore how taxes are actually calculated and collected. The taxes are not taxed, well unless taxes are already built into the product like cigarettes, then your charged sales tax on the state and federal excise taxes.

I agree sales taxes are calculated as you say now, but I don't understand why that means they can't be calculated differently. And 23% included tax = 29.87% added on tax, they are synonymous.

And many other taxes are calculated like the fair tax, including corporate taxes and the income tax.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The fairtax isn't fair at all! It benefits the super rich.

 

[Two Thumbs]

During the first presidential debate Mike Huckabee once again touted the fairtax proposal, and once again Mike Huckabee has lied about the “fairtax” (see H.R.25 - FairTax Act of 2015. Unfortunately our media personalities will not ask him to support his contentions about the fairtax
.
Huckabee alleges the fairtax would close down the IRS and would replace our current system with a consumption tax. But the truth is, when one takes the time to actually read and study the fairtax legislation, quite the contrary is true.

The fair tax proposes to create two new taxes, a 23 percent tax upon the sale of articles of consumption and another 23 percent tax upon the sale of labor while keeping alive Congress’ power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other lawfully earned incomes.

In fact, Huckabee’s fairtax would create two new tax collecting agencies, an “Excise Tax Bureau” and the “Sales Tax Bureau, in addition to keeping the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms alive which will also be collecting taxes.

It should also be noted that under Huckabee’s “fairtax” ordinary working people who dare to sell the property they have in their own labor are required to register with the federal government and file federal fairtax returns under the penalty of perjury 12 times a freaken year, and they will be compelled to keep any records Congress may dream up, not to mention the threat of audits which will constantly haunt them.

It should also be noted Huckabee’s fairtax proposes to create a new entitlement called the “FAMILY CONSUMPTION ALLOWANCE” under which qualified families will receive a monthly check to pay for a rationed amount of tax free necessities of life, which in turn would make a whole new block of voters with limited economic means extremely dependent upon the federal government for a monthly subsistence check!

If Mike Huckabee were sincere in wanting to force Congress to move to a consumption tax, and end all federal taxes calculated from profits, gains and other lawfully earned “incomes”, and he really wanted to close down the IRS, he would be promoting the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment which begins with the following 32 words:


“SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.

Those words would in fact force Congress to return to a consumption based tax system (imposts, duties and excise taxes), and would actually end all federal taxes calculated from lawfully earned profits, gains and other "incomes"!

JWK




“…..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities“. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address

I like the way you make all these assumptions as it they are proof.


I'd like to think you came up with this yourself, but probably not

 

[kaz]

The fairtax isn't fair at all! It benefits the super rich.

Always going back to the staple, class warfare. You need to actually understand it to realize what a pile of shit that is. All taxes are already embedded in the price of what we buy, this would be a boon for everyone. It's sad you'll screw the poor in your endless effort the punish wealth because this would help them the most

 

[johnwk]

The fairtax isn't fair at all! It benefits the super rich.

Absolutely wrong. It benefits our Washington Establishment by creating two new taxes while keeping alive Congress' power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other lawfully earned incomes.

Have you ever studied the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment?

JWK





“…..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities“. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address

 

[g5000]

Actually the H.R.25 - FairTax Act of 2015 calls fort a 23% of the retailer's gross. Thus for a return of $100 he'll need to collect $129.87 from the buyer.

SEC. 101. Imposition of sales tax.
(a) In General.—There is hereby imposed a tax on the use or consumption in the United States of taxable property or services.
(b) Rate.—
(1) FOR 2017.—In the calendar year 2017, the rate of tax is 23 percent of the gross payments for the taxable property or service.

Where did the other 6.87% come from?

math.

Must be that fuzzy math we keep hearing about, because 23% of $100.00 is $23.00 not $29.87.

Actually, the 23% tax refers to that for a $100 bill, $23 of that would be fair tax. So if you calculate it like sales tax, that would be 23/77 = 29.87%.

The ignorant like to moan and flip out about that, which makes no sense because no matter how you calculate it, it's what we are paying now. The idea is when you go to the store you get a tax included price. Which is the same thing that business taxes work anyway.

Take another look at his example, it's not calculated that way. He says there would be 29.87 on a 100.00 sale.

No. He said there would be $29.87 tax to net a $100 return.