It was about the use of the word abuse, and neither of those things. Certainly not a straw man, that doesn't even make any sense. But I don't think there's any suggestion that I was drawing any implicit parallel, it was just another use of the word to illustrate a point. And you still haven't replied to the question.
It was a straw man fallacy:
The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:
Person 1 asserts proposition X.
Person 2 argues against a false but superficially similar proposition Y, as if that were an argument against X.
Ireland's issues were not because it attracted international business through low tax rates.
Ireland's issues were numerous but winning the race to the bottom on business taxes was definitely one of the reasons. It's also one of the reasons why Ireland's economy has taken so long to recover.
The problem for any country trying to attract business based on low taxes alone is that there will always be another country even more desperate and stupid eventually.
Attracting business based on good infrastructure and a well-educated population is a far more sustainable model.
I wish all taxes were abolished other than income tax. That would, of course, be much higher, but everything would be much cheaper to buy, so psychologically people would be inclined to spend more. I don't see why business should pay any tax. Businesses are made up of people who pay income tax; why should they be double taxed?
The income tax is terrible tax and should be abolished everywhere. Although this is a US based tax proposal, I don't see why it couldn't be applied elsewhere: www.FairTax.org
The income tax is terrible tax and should be abolished everywhere. Although this is a US based tax proposal, I don't see why it couldn't be applied elsewhere: www.FairTax.org
So what's to stop everyone shopping in Canada and avoiding the tax?
So what's to stop everyone shopping in Canada and avoiding the tax?
What about border issues?
It is unlikely that “shopping across the border” in Canada or Mexico will result in any cost savings to the consumer. Remember, the FairTax is revenue neutral and therefore price neutral. This means the relative cost of retail goods and services after the FairTax remains very close to the same levels found in the marketplace today. With regard to interstate competition, since all states have the same federal sales tax rate, the federal sales tax is not an incentive to cross state lines to avoid the tax.
Retail businesses collect the tax from the consumer, just as state sales tax systems already do in 45 states; the FairTax is simply an additional line on the current sales tax reporting form. Retailers simply collect the tax and send it to the state taxing authority. All businesses serving as collection agents receive a fee for collection, and the states also receive a collection fee. The tax revenues from the states are then sent to the U.S. Treasury.
Exactly what taxes are abolished?
The FairTax is replacement, not reform. It replaces federal income taxes including personal, estate, gift, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, self-employment, and corporate taxes.
What is taxed?
The FairTax is a single-rate, federal retail sales tax collected only once, at the final point of purchase of new goods and services for personal consumption. Used items are not taxed. Business-to-business purchases for the production of goods and services are not taxed. A prebate makes the effective rate progressive.
I know the FAIRtax rate is 23 percent when compared to current income taxes. What will the rate of the sales tax be at the retail counter?
30 percent. This issue is often confusing, so we explain more here.
When income tax rates are quoted, economists call that a tax-inclusive quote: “I paid 23 percent last year.” For every $100 earned, $23 went to Uncle Sam. Or, “I had to make $130 to have $100 to spend.” That’s a 23-percent tax-inclusive rate.
We choose to compare the FairTax to income taxes, quoting the rate the same way, because the FairTax replaces such taxes. That rate is 23 percent.
Sales taxes, on the other hand, are generally quoted tax exclusive: “I bought a $77 shirt and had to pay that same $23 in sales tax.” This is a 30-percent sales tax. Or, “I spent a dollar, 77¢ for the product and 23¢ in tax.” This rate, when programmed into a point-of-purchase terminal, is 30 percent.
Note that no matter which way it is quoted, the amount of tax is the same. Under an income tax rate of 23 percent, you have to earn $130 to spend $100.
Spend that same $100 under a sales tax, you pay that same tax of $30, and the rate is quoted as 30 percent.
Perhaps the biggest difference between the two is that under the income tax, controlling the amount of tax you pay is a complex nightmare. Under the FairTax, you may simply choose not to spend, or to spend less.
I wish all taxes were abolished other than income tax. That would, of course, be much higher, but everything would be much cheaper to buy, so psychologically people would be inclined to spend more. I don't see why business should pay any tax. Businesses are made up of people who pay income tax; why should they be double taxed?
Income Tax is actually one of the worst taxes in terms of ethics and morality.
Only governments that are police states can enforce an income tax (this is a philosophical fact). Other forms of taxes are much more palatable in that regard.
(proof: There are only two types of governments out there: governments that derive their power from the people, and governments that derive their power through threat or use of force. A government of the people -- one that gets its power from the people -- can only take the power that the people have the right to give. A person can not bestow upon his representative, powers that he himself does not have. Since I don't have the right to take my neighbor's money in order to pay for new roads, or for homeless people, or a hospital, or for a new rifle, or whatever purpose for me or for the benefit of others I see fit to take his money, then I cannot bestow or transfer that right or power to my representative, the government. The only other choice is that governments take the right through threat or use of force. General police power, however, passes muster, as I have the right to defend myself and my family, so I can bestow that right to my representative [gov] as well. {note that this does not mean that everything that the police do would be correct under this principle}. Taxes such as use taxes for roads, etc, as well as customs duties and the sort pass must as well as I can charge for use of property, or for the pleasure of doing business with you)
So what's to stop everyone shopping in Canada and avoiding the tax?
For one it would be easy to erect customs barriers. 2, the shipping costs would be quite high, as would the wait {Canada Post is not known as the most timely}
does not everyone recognize that all corporate taxes are paid by you the consumer? Corporate tax is a hidden tax on every consumer. This hiding of taxes lets the elected dimwits spend us into oblivion. If you total up what the real tax you pay each and every year you would likely revolt and throw the bums out.
does not everyone recognize that all corporate taxes are paid by you the consumer? Corporate tax is a hidden tax on every consumer. This hiding of taxes lets the elected dimwits spend us into oblivion. If you total up what the real tax you pay each and every year you would likely revolt and throw the bums out.
in answer to your question, no they don't because it isn't true and a lot of people are better educated than you.
I can understand a tax of 5% or less, but 25%? That's insanity! Is the U.K. wanting to put the companies out of business while sitting on their fat, lazy arses?
The UK is one of the fastest growing economies in Europe, and possibly in the world. That sort of growth would be very difficult to achieve if if we were sitting on our arses doing very little.
Ireland's issues were numerous but winning the race to the bottom on business taxes was definitely one of the reasons. It's also one of the reasons why Ireland's economy has taken so long to recover.
The problem for any country trying to attract business based on low taxes alone is that there will always be another country even more desperate and stupid eventually.
Attracting business based on good infrastructure and a well-educated population is a far more sustainable model.
Somehow I doubt that their low business tax rates played a significant role in their malaise. High personal debt levels and a severe property bubble are the main culprits, along with banking issues.
Basing attraction of business on tax rates alone could be a problem because the business may not stick around, if it shows up at all [most businesses look at more than just tax rates but look at the things you mentioned], agreed. But the low rates themselves are not the problem. Countries don't tax themselves to prosperity.
The UK is one of the fastest growing economies in Europe, and possibly in the world. That sort of growth would be very difficult to achieve if if we were sitting on our arses doing very little.
I wish all taxes were abolished other than income tax. That would, of course, be much higher, but everything would be much cheaper to buy, so psychologically people would be inclined to spend more. I don't see why business should pay any tax. Businesses are made up of people who pay income tax; why should they be double taxed?
I think most people agree that the tax system should be less complicated (except tax advisors!) but taxation is an important tool that governments use as part of a mixed economy. Tax can be used to discourage certain behaviours (for example smoking) or to encourage investment in certain industries (for example building new houses).
But encouraging certain behaviours is a nanny state. I don't want a nanny state which thinks it knows what is best for me.
in answer to your question, no they don't because it isn't true and a lot of people are better educated than you.
I got my business degree at Wharton what about you big mouth?
Businesses don't pay taxes they collect them. Money only comes from one place, consumers, not the government. If you don't get this you should go back to school.
It is unlikely that “shopping across the border” in Canada or Mexico will result in any cost savings to the consumer. Remember, the FairTax is revenue neutral and therefore price neutral. This means the relative cost of retail goods and services after the FairTax remains very close to the same levels found in the marketplace today. With regard to interstate competition, since all states have the same federal sales tax rate, the federal sales tax is not an incentive to cross state lines to avoid the tax.
Retail businesses collect the tax from the consumer, just as state sales tax systems already do in 45 states; the FairTax is simply an additional line on the current sales tax reporting form. Retailers simply collect the tax and send it to the state taxing authority. All businesses serving as collection agents receive a fee for collection, and the states also receive a collection fee. The tax revenues from the states are then sent to the U.S. Treasury.
Exactly what taxes are abolished?
The FairTax is replacement, not reform. It replaces federal income taxes including personal, estate, gift, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, self-employment, and corporate taxes.
What is taxed?
The FairTax is a single-rate, federal retail sales tax collected only once, at the final point of purchase of new goods and services for personal consumption. Used items are not taxed. Business-to-business purchases for the production of goods and services are not taxed. A prebate makes the effective rate progressive.
I know the FAIRtax rate is 23 percent when compared to current income taxes. What will the rate of the sales tax be at the retail counter?
30 percent. This issue is often confusing, so we explain more here.
When income tax rates are quoted, economists call that a tax-inclusive quote: “I paid 23 percent last year.” For every $100 earned, $23 went to Uncle Sam. Or, “I had to make $130 to have $100 to spend.” That’s a 23-percent tax-inclusive rate.
We choose to compare the FairTax to income taxes, quoting the rate the same way, because the FairTax replaces such taxes. That rate is 23 percent.
Sales taxes, on the other hand, are generally quoted tax exclusive: “I bought a $77 shirt and had to pay that same $23 in sales tax.” This is a 30-percent sales tax. Or, “I spent a dollar, 77¢ for the product and 23¢ in tax.” This rate, when programmed into a point-of-purchase terminal, is 30 percent.
Note that no matter which way it is quoted, the amount of tax is the same. Under an income tax rate of 23 percent, you have to earn $130 to spend $100.
Spend that same $100 under a sales tax, you pay that same tax of $30, and the rate is quoted as 30 percent.
Perhaps the biggest difference between the two is that under the income tax, controlling the amount of tax you pay is a complex nightmare. Under the FairTax, you may simply choose not to spend, or to spend less.
The cons seem to out way the pros for most....of course the wealthy benefit the most.
Haven't you already been arguing "the wealthy" aren't paying their "fair share"? The FairTax flattens the playing field and everyone pays except for the "prebate" for the very, very poor.
Also, the comments section on that page features comments that directly address the misleading "cons" in the article.
Less government = less taxes. That's the true problem.
Very short-sighted. Taxes can represent a good return on investment by way of bulk purchasing power. The kind that funds public infrastructure which builds the stable economies from which companies like Google reap the benefit. Profit offshoring is a sin commited in the name of the almighty shareholder.
All these companies should be ashamed of themselves. They are not good citizens of the countries that have rewarded them with so much riches. And, our government is nothing but hacks enabling theses companies to rip us all off. We desperately need more revenue so the government can provide vital services for its citizens.
Comments
It was about the use of the word abuse, and neither of those things. Certainly not a straw man, that doesn't even make any sense. But I don't think there's any suggestion that I was drawing any implicit parallel, it was just another use of the word to illustrate a point. And you still haven't replied to the question.
It was a straw man fallacy:
The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#Structure
Ireland's issues were not because it attracted international business through low tax rates.
Ireland's issues were numerous but winning the race to the bottom on business taxes was definitely one of the reasons. It's also one of the reasons why Ireland's economy has taken so long to recover.
The problem for any country trying to attract business based on low taxes alone is that there will always be another country even more desperate and stupid eventually.
Attracting business based on good infrastructure and a well-educated population is a far more sustainable model.
We get taxed far too many times here in the UK.
I wish all taxes were abolished other than income tax. That would, of course, be much higher, but everything would be much cheaper to buy, so psychologically people would be inclined to spend more. I don't see why business should pay any tax. Businesses are made up of people who pay income tax; why should they be double taxed?
The income tax is terrible tax and should be abolished everywhere. Although this is a US based tax proposal, I don't see why it couldn't be applied elsewhere: www.FairTax.org
The income tax is terrible tax and should be abolished everywhere. Although this is a US based tax proposal, I don't see why it couldn't be applied elsewhere: www.FairTax.org
So what's to stop everyone shopping in Canada and avoiding the tax?
So what's to stop everyone shopping in Canada and avoiding the tax?
What about border issues?
How is the tax collected?
Exactly what taxes are abolished?
What is taxed?
I know the FAIRtax rate is 23 percent when compared to current income taxes. What will the rate of the sales tax be at the retail counter?
When income tax rates are quoted, economists call that a tax-inclusive quote: “I paid 23 percent last year.” For every $100 earned, $23 went to Uncle Sam. Or, “I had to make $130 to have $100 to spend.” That’s a 23-percent tax-inclusive rate.
We choose to compare the FairTax to income taxes, quoting the rate the same way, because the FairTax replaces such taxes. That rate is 23 percent.
Sales taxes, on the other hand, are generally quoted tax exclusive: “I bought a $77 shirt and had to pay that same $23 in sales tax.” This is a 30-percent sales tax. Or, “I spent a dollar, 77¢ for the product and 23¢ in tax.” This rate, when programmed into a point-of-purchase terminal, is 30 percent.
Note that no matter which way it is quoted, the amount of tax is the same. Under an income tax rate of 23 percent, you have to earn $130 to spend $100.
Spend that same $100 under a sales tax, you pay that same tax of $30, and the rate is quoted as 30 percent.
Perhaps the biggest difference between the two is that under the income tax, controlling the amount of tax you pay is a complex nightmare. Under the FairTax, you may simply choose not to spend, or to spend less.
We get taxed far too many times here in the UK.
I wish all taxes were abolished other than income tax. That would, of course, be much higher, but everything would be much cheaper to buy, so psychologically people would be inclined to spend more. I don't see why business should pay any tax. Businesses are made up of people who pay income tax; why should they be double taxed?
Income Tax is actually one of the worst taxes in terms of ethics and morality.
Only governments that are police states can enforce an income tax (this is a philosophical fact). Other forms of taxes are much more palatable in that regard.
(proof: There are only two types of governments out there: governments that derive their power from the people, and governments that derive their power through threat or use of force. A government of the people -- one that gets its power from the people -- can only take the power that the people have the right to give. A person can not bestow upon his representative, powers that he himself does not have. Since I don't have the right to take my neighbor's money in order to pay for new roads, or for homeless people, or a hospital, or for a new rifle, or whatever purpose for me or for the benefit of others I see fit to take his money, then I cannot bestow or transfer that right or power to my representative, the government. The only other choice is that governments take the right through threat or use of force. General police power, however, passes muster, as I have the right to defend myself and my family, so I can bestow that right to my representative [gov] as well. {note that this does not mean that everything that the police do would be correct under this principle}. Taxes such as use taxes for roads, etc, as well as customs duties and the sort pass must as well as I can charge for use of property, or for the pleasure of doing business with you)
So what's to stop everyone shopping in Canada and avoiding the tax?
For one it would be easy to erect customs barriers. 2, the shipping costs would be quite high, as would the wait {Canada Post is not known as the most timely}
I can understand a tax of 5% or less, but 25%? That's insanity! Is the U.K. wanting to put the companies out of business while sitting on their fat, lazy arses?
The UK is one of the fastest growing economies in Europe, and possibly in the world. That sort of growth would be very difficult to achieve if if we were sitting on our arses doing very little.
Ireland's issues were numerous but winning the race to the bottom on business taxes was definitely one of the reasons. It's also one of the reasons why Ireland's economy has taken so long to recover.
The problem for any country trying to attract business based on low taxes alone is that there will always be another country even more desperate and stupid eventually.
Attracting business based on good infrastructure and a well-educated population is a far more sustainable model.
Somehow I doubt that their low business tax rates played a significant role in their malaise. High personal debt levels and a severe property bubble are the main culprits, along with banking issues.
Basing attraction of business on tax rates alone could be a problem because the business may not stick around, if it shows up at all [most businesses look at more than just tax rates but look at the things you mentioned], agreed. But the low rates themselves are not the problem. Countries don't tax themselves to prosperity.
The UK is one of the fastest growing economies in Europe, and possibly in the world. That sort of growth would be very difficult to achieve if if we were sitting on our arses doing very little.
You are way, way off:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-25/the-20-fastest-growing-economies-this-year
You win the prize!
There should be some kind of alarm bell that rings whenever anyone uses this spurious argument anywhere, about anything.
It is theft. Anyone who denies it is delusional.
Try not paying your tax. Dudes with guns will eventually show up and either take all you have or put you in the slammer/hoosegow/jail.
Is a man beating his wife in a country with lax domestic violence laws not abusing her?
Strawman. Assault and the such are still a crime even if the domestic violence laws are lax.
Paying the taxes as outlined by the law of the land, even if some people disagree with the amount, is not a crime.
But encouraging certain behaviours is a nanny state. I don't want a nanny state which thinks it knows what is best for me.
in answer to your question, no they don't because it isn't true and a lot of people are better educated than you.
I got my business degree at Wharton what about you big mouth?
Businesses don't pay taxes they collect them. Money only comes from one place, consumers, not the government. If you don't get this you should go back to school.
What about border issues?
How is the tax collected?
Exactly what taxes are abolished?
What is taxed?
I know the FAIRtax rate is 23 percent when compared to current income taxes. What will the rate of the sales tax be at the retail counter?
When income tax rates are quoted, economists call that a tax-inclusive quote: “I paid 23 percent last year.” For every $100 earned, $23 went to Uncle Sam. Or, “I had to make $130 to have $100 to spend.” That’s a 23-percent tax-inclusive rate.
We choose to compare the FairTax to income taxes, quoting the rate the same way, because the FairTax replaces such taxes. That rate is 23 percent.
Sales taxes, on the other hand, are generally quoted tax exclusive: “I bought a $77 shirt and had to pay that same $23 in sales tax.” This is a 30-percent sales tax. Or, “I spent a dollar, 77¢ for the product and 23¢ in tax.” This rate, when programmed into a point-of-purchase terminal, is 30 percent.
Note that no matter which way it is quoted, the amount of tax is the same. Under an income tax rate of 23 percent, you have to earn $130 to spend $100.
Spend that same $100 under a sales tax, you pay that same tax of $30, and the rate is quoted as 30 percent.
Perhaps the biggest difference between the two is that under the income tax, controlling the amount of tax you pay is a complex nightmare. Under the FairTax, you may simply choose not to spend, or to spend less.
Pros & cons of the FairTax:
http://www.moneycrashers.com/fair-tax-act-explained-pros-cons/
The cons seem to out way the pros for most....of course the wealthy benefit the most.
Haven't you already been arguing "the wealthy" aren't paying their "fair share"? The FairTax flattens the playing field and everyone pays except for the "prebate" for the very, very poor.
Also, the comments section on that page features comments that directly address the misleading "cons" in the article.
Its the only answer.
Less government = less taxes. That's the true problem.
Very short-sighted. Taxes can represent a good return on investment by way of bulk purchasing power. The kind that funds public infrastructure which builds the stable economies from which companies like Google reap the benefit. Profit offshoring is a sin commited in the name of the almighty shareholder.