Law Here are a couple bills ALL Americans can get behind: H.R.24 and H.R.25

[Fugazy]

Audit the fed when Don releases his tax returns.

What..?

Why would you even conflate those two things?

 

[Bunk Moreland]

What kind of sense does that make? Trump doesn't print and loan us our money.

What..?

Why would you even conflate those two things?

It’s called let’s make a deal. Best deal maker in the universe. Better than God’s deals. Some call it an art. I don’t know. I just know deals. And this is a good one. The best, really.

 

[Fugazy]

It’s called let’s make a deal. Best deal maker in the universe. Better than God’s deals. Some call it an art. I don’t know. I just know deals. And this is a good one. The best, really.

Ok, sure man.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I don't mean consistent application of the percentages, but consistency in administration and enforcement.

Sorry, but that sounds like empty rhetoric. I've lived in a number of states that collect sales tax. There was nothing irregular about it. I paid it every time. Do you have some evidence that businesses fail to report and remit state sales tax obligations to a greater extent than they fail in their federal obligations? My money is that sales tax remittance has a higher compliance rate and far less errors.

it will be businesses that are potentially more burdened.

You ever collected and remitted sales tax? It's pretty damn easy compared to year end tax returns. Bi-weekly payroll tax was easy. Outside the handful of states where no sales tax exists, they're already doing it. This just changes the percentage. And for those businesses in states that would have to adapt, they'd be unburdened by the income tax return.

I feel like discussing it even further is to make assumptions about what would be in it.

A national sales tax is the Fair Tax and the plans are out there. So it's not like we're speculating on thin air. But of course, details matter.

As for your statement about the IRS being backlogged, that's fundamentally different than where the responsibility for federal law should lie - with the states or with the federal government. I still believe, principally, that the federal government should enforce it's own laws. Or don't make them and allow the states to do it. But I don't like the idea of the federal government increasing it's own size and reach at the expense of the states.

I get you philosophically, but there's not much practical concern. The feds require individuals, businesses, and states to do shit all the time. And it will be enforcing it's own laws when you look at it in more simple terms. The law says states will be required to collect an X-% sales tax on business activity in their jurisdiction and remit it to the feds. If they don't they'll get sued in federal court. And they'll lose under the commerce clause.

 

[Satsui Ryu]

Auditing the Board of Fed will reveal what ? What is that suppose to expose ? Will it give us a reason to act? What action will that be?

Based on the people who obsess about this if the aduit reveals how many Fed employees' last names end with Berg they'd consider it a success.

 

[MadSquabbles500]

Based on the people who obsess about this if the aduit reveals how many Fed employees' last names end with Berg they'd consider it a success.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Nope. These are dumb. One is a version of "audit the fed", and the other is a fractally stupid proposal to replace the income tax (and IRS) with a national sales tax administered by the states.

Shouldn't you support auditing the fed, so you can point to the audit, and call us tin-foil who were wrong?

It seems to me, if you think the CT's are dumb, and you want them to go away, you should support auditing the fed.

 

[VivaRevolution]

I can't support the abolish income taxes for sales tax.

Abolish income tax for tarriffs and you had me at abolish.

 

[Higus]

Why is it a silly idea to audit the fed?

The Fed is already audited every 6 months or so by independent parties. Results are publicly available.
When politicians say they want to audit the fed, what they really mean is they want congress to have the ability to make “recommendations” (read: take direct control) on monetary policy instead of leaving it to non-partisan parties.
I don’t know about you, but seeing how toxic Congress is atm, that sounds frightening to me.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

When politicians say they want to audit the fed, what they really mean is they want congress to have the ability to make “recommendations” (read: take direct control) on monetary policy instead of leaving it to non-partisan parties.
I don’t know about you, but seeing how toxic Congress is atm, that sounds frightening to me.

Exactly. Constitutionally, in whose authority does monetary policy reside?

 

[Quipling]

What's dumb about that?

Audit the Fed bills like this one aren't really just about audits if you read through them. They're just deliberately cumbersome demands for redundant information that, to the extent that they are audits, duplicates info the fed already provides, stapled to a business analysis that is well outside the expertise of the the treasury auditors who would be tasked with the action (which slows down the audit, making it waste more resources). It's a wasteful use of govt resources that is deliberately designed to make the fed less efficient.

 

[Prutfis]

The second one is just plain retarded.

Any estimates of what that sales tax would have to be in order to maintain a functioning government and services?

 

[7437]

Shouldn't you support auditing the fed, so you can point to the audit, and call us tin-foil who were wrong?

It seems to me, if you think the CT's are dumb, and you want them to go away, you should support auditing the fed.

Its audited all the time. The CTs are dumb and reality doesn't matter. They should not be humored. They should be mocked.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Its audited all the time. The CTs are dumb and reality doesn't matter. They should not be humored. They should be mocked.

Ok, but that makes you an asshole.

 

[7437]

Ok, but that makes you an asshole.

Recognizing that anyone who says to audit the fed is an idiot makes me an asshole?

It's already audited. Often.

 

[MiniCraque]

It would depend if it's the same rate for everything. For example, you could do 0% rate for groceries and possibly clothing, 10% for dining out/fast food, 10%+ for luxury type items like a yacht, etc. I don't think you'd want it to get too complicated but you can see the point.

Two problems with this:

1. There's a massive difference in the percentage of income that goes towards consumption as you go up in income levels. How much of Bezos's yearly income goes towards retail? Probably less than 5%. Even if you adjusted rates for different items (which the Fair Tax plan doesn't, it's a flat 23% rate for everything), there's no amount of tinkering humanly possible to offset income disparities. It's a regressive system through and through. Even if you create mechanisms to help people near the poverty line (and the proposed "prebate" would be ridiculously complicated), the middle class would bear most of the tax load while the super rich would essentially pay next to nothing.

2. This plan is not revenue neutral. Anyone who tells you this is either misinformed or straight up lying. And I'm not talking about slightly adjusting government spending, I'm talking about completely restructuring all levels of government from the ground up because there would be no money to go around.

It all boils down to the fact that there's no way in hell to create a tax system 100% based on consumption that is both progressive and revenue neutral.

 

[HIMBOB]

First might have merit but the 2nd is straight laughable.

Creates incentive to earn locally and spend internationally.

 

[Lead]

Two problems with this:

1. There's a massive difference in the percentage of income that goes towards consumption as you go up in income levels. How much of Bezos's yearly income goes towards retail? Probably less than 5%. Even if you adjusted rates for different items (which the Fair Tax plan doesn't, it's a flat 23% rate for everything), there's no amount of tinkering humanly possible to offset income disparities. It's a regressive system through and through. Even if you create mechanisms to help people near the poverty line (and the proposed "prebate" would be ridiculously complicated), the middle class would bear most of the tax load while the super rich would essentially pay next to nothing.

2. This plan is not revenue neutral. Anyone who tells you this is either misinformed or straight up lying. And I'm not talking about slightly adjusting government spending, I'm talking about completely restructuring all levels of government from the ground up because there would be no money to go around.

It all boils down to the fact that there's no way in hell to create a tax system 100% based on consumption that is both progressive and revenue neutral.

I wouldn’t implement it. I was just stating there are ways to make it less regressive.

 

[spamking]

Based on the people who obsess about this if the aduit reveals how many Fed employees' last names end with Berg they'd consider it a success.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Recognizing that anyone who says to audit the fed is an idiot makes me an asshole?

It's already audited. Often.

So you realize that no one in congress that has talked about auditing the fed, means that we don't audit the fed at all?

The audit the fed acts that have been proposed in the past, are about expanding the scope of what is audited, and making that information available to congress.

What about that do you not only disagree with, but find to be stupid?