Quote :

"As designed, the FairTax is revenue neutral...and it will reduce taxes for most Americans. "

You completely missed who I was talking about. It should be revenue neutral for ALL AMERICAN citizens. Be kind, rewind.

1/25/2006 12:58:09 PM

The poor will pay less taxes
The rich will pay less taxes
Businesses will pay less taxes
It's revenue neutral

honest

1/25/2006 1:25:35 PM

i still am waiting for someone to realistically address the huge loss of jobs.

tax preparation, tax collection, auditing firms, tax lawyers, tax lobyists, tax software developers, etc.

1/25/2006 5:25:13 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

1/25/2006 5:33:08 PM

Quote :

"EarthDogg: What question is that?"

Quote :

"TGD: on a side note EarthDogg, do you work for these people? I didn't realize how many of these FairTax threads you've created until I did a search for them, you're like the 7th or 8th one..."

1/25/2006 9:33:32 PM

Quote :

"i still am waiting for someone to realistically address the huge loss of jobs. tax preparation, tax collection, auditing firms, tax lawyers, tax lobyists, tax software developers, etc."

that's not really worthy of being addressed. If those jobs are eliminated, that is a good thing because it signals that society as a whole has become that much more productive. American history is replete with examples. Don't force us into a tedious breakdown on this issue, ok?

1/25/2006 9:36:43 PM

i will b/c i completely dont understand your point of view in getting rid of thousands upon thousands of jobs to make taxes easier and supposedly more helpful (which is questionable). those industries are huge.

1/25/2006 10:04:56 PM

^ his question was actually covered by the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

1/25/2006 10:11:29 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

1/25/2006 11:25:28 PM

Quote :

"It should be revenue neutral for ALL "

The more you spend, the more you pay. The rich spend more so they will pay more, but the highest rate will now be 23%

Quote :

"do you work for these people?"

Nope

Quote :

"getting rid of thousands upon thousands of jobs to make taxes easier "

Yes, some folks are gonna have to get new jobs. But according to Harvard economist Dale Jorgenson the Fairtax will expand our GDP 10% after the first year of implementation, so these folks shouldn't have too tough a time finding new employment.

1/25/2006 11:40:35 PM

Quote :

"The more you spend, the more you pay. The rich spend more so they will pay more, but the highest rate will now be 23"

You people never address the fact that the lower and middle classes spend more on goods as a percentage of their income.

1/26/2006 12:20:07 AM

Quote :

"As designed, the FairTax is revenue neutral...and it will reduce taxes for most Americans."

Fill in the blank:

It raises taxes for _______________.

1/26/2006 3:50:06 AM

MC Hammer and other rich ppl that spend all their cash?

1/26/2006 10:07:18 AM

Quote :

"boonedocks: You people never address the fact that the lower and middle classes spend more on goods as a percentage of their income."

and...pwnt (albeit one among many)

1/26/2006 10:14:30 AM

Quote :

"It raises taxes for _______________."

It raises taxes on those who spend more than they did the previous year. The tax system no longer punishes those who worked harder and earned more money than the previous year.

Figure out how much did you spent last year. Now, take 23% of that, that's your fed. tax burden under the FairTax. Now figure out how much you paid in fed income taxes, SS, Medicare, capital gains. You probably would've paid less tax under FairTax.

Quote :

"You people never address the fact that the lower and middle classes spend more on goods as a percentage of their income."

The prebate addresses this. The poor could spend 100% of their income and still pay zero fed taxes as well as the regressive SS tax. So it doesn't matter what percentage of their income they spend...their taxes are zero.

A family of 3 will recieve a monthly prebate of about $1800. If you're rich or poor, the amount is the same. If you decide to spend more than that, then you start paying fed. taxes.

[Edited on January 26, 2006 at 10:49 AM. Reason : .]

1/26/2006 10:48:51 AM

so we keep giving handouts to the poor through the tax system. gg.

1/26/2006 10:57:21 AM

Quote :

"so we keep giving handouts to the poor through the tax system."

Well that's the topic of another thread. The FairTax is designed to simply replace the current income tax system..not reform it. The designers realized that today's culture would never allow a system that didn't prop up the poor.

1/26/2006 11:04:47 AM

Quote :

"The test subjects on both sides of the political aisle reached totally biased conclusions by ignoring information that could not rationally be discounted, Westen and his colleagues say. Then, with their minds made up, brain activity ceased in the areas that deal with negative emotions such as disgust. But activity spiked in the circuits involved in reward, a response similar to what addicts experience when they get a fix, Westen explained...."

another relevant link to this embarrassment of a thread

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=382592

1/26/2006 11:13:19 AM

^
Ahh..the final arrows left in the quiver of intellectual thought are ad hominem attacks...we must be making some progress. I'm pleased.

1/26/2006 1:48:16 PM

i think a couple problems arise here.

the poor who live on a check to check basis might have some real problems paying for things with a 23% markup when they wont get that cash back until the end of the month. it forces them to buy less now and "save" that money till the end of the month. many cant afford to do that on a daily basis.

im confused as to how this system would rebate them again. is it based on their income or do they have to send stuff in (im really not gonna go look through when you should know the answer). it is open to abuse if they just do it via income cuz they could buy everything used. if they have to send in receipts and whatnot, it is just as bloated and prone to problems as the current system.

1/26/2006 2:55:46 PM

Quote :

"It raises taxes on those who spend more than they did the previous year."

That doesn't answer the question. This is the type of sidestepping that makes ad hominem completely acceptable when dealing with you people.

You propose a magical replacement for our tax system that will lower taxes for businesses and the wealthy, not raise working class taxes, keep taxes for the poor the same, and will still be revenue neutral.

When you continue to sidestep basic questions, all we're left with is to question your motivations. Then we get "omg ad hominem!"


Again: This plan will reduce taxes on businesses and the wealthy. Will middle and lower class taxes go up?

We all know the answer. Just admit it so that you can have an honest debate on the issue.

1/26/2006 3:38:30 PM

Why does tax policy always center around the poor? I say to hell with them, and implement taxes only where necessary.

1/26/2006 4:15:01 PM

Quote :

"i think a couple problems arise here. the poor who live on a check to check basis might have some real problems paying for things with a 23% markup when they wont get that cash back until the end of the month. it forces them to buy less now and "save" that money till the end of the month. many cant afford to do that on a daily basis."

As it stands currently, those people living paycheck to paycheck get ~20% taken out in taxes that they never see even a penny of back until the end of the year. Last I looked at my taxes, I could afford my share of the months rent, phone and internet access all on what gets taken out of my paycheck in taxes, nevermind what I also pay in sales tax, gas tax etc etc etc.

Quote :

"This plan will reduce taxes on businesses and the wealthy. Will middle and lower class taxes go up? We all know the answer. Just admit it so that you can have an honest debate on the issue."

The answer is, it doesn't have to. Why is it that any plan which changes the tax system must take in the exact same ammount our tax system takes currently. Just about everyone I know agrees that the government takes too much in taxes, so why should a new system maintain the status quo? Why can't we implement a system that reduces the income of the government?

1/26/2006 4:45:24 PM

^ im sure 100% of ppl wouldnt mind paying less taxes, but plenty of ppl appreciate the programs that their tax dollars pays for. we're in a deficit as it is, lowering taxes isnt helping any.

^^ fair enough, but using your figure they still have 3% less to use at the time, which matters. you didnt answer my question as to how the rebate was taken account of either.

1/26/2006 5:10:09 PM

Quote :

" im sure 100% of ppl wouldnt mind paying less taxes, but plenty of ppl appreciate the programs that their tax dollars pays for. we're in a deficit as it is, lowering taxes isnt helping any. "

The question becomes when solving the problems of government over spending, should we give the government more money or try to force the government to cut back on spending. Would you give a person who's in debt up to their eyeballs more money or tell them to get a cheaper car than an H2 and give up to 500 channel cable subscription? Taxes pay for a lot of good shit, and they also pay for alot of bad shit (ignoring for a moment that "good" and "bad" change from person to person). Not everything the government pays for they should, and not everything they spend millions on do they need to spend that much on.

Quote :

"fair enough, but using your figure they still have 3% less to use at the time, which matters. "

True enough, but getting that back every month rather than every 12 months puts them in a better situation. Consider this, you get 3 "paychecks" a month. Two from your employer every 2 weeks and 1 from the government for your rebate, vs 2 paychecks every month and a bonus once a year. That's more money to spend each month, even if it's delayed to the end of the month.

Quote :

"you didnt answer my question as to how the rebate was taken account of either."

I don't know the answer to this, as I really haven't read much on it yet, I was just making a point about two things I saw quickly.

1/26/2006 5:47:55 PM

i meant earthdog since he seems to know a lot about it. theres really no good answer to it though.

Quote :

"The question becomes when solving the problems of government over spending, should we give the government more money or try to force the government to cut back on spending. Would you give a person who's in debt up to their eyeballs more money or tell them to get a cheaper car than an H2 and give up to 500 channel cable subscription? Taxes pay for a lot of good shit, and they also pay for alot of bad shit (ignoring for a moment that "good" and "bad" change from person to person). Not everything the government pays for they should, and not everything they spend millions on do they need to spend that much on."

i dont disagree, im dont want to give them more, just what they already get. giving them less is no way to help with the debt or even with the shitty spending. just gotta hold them more responsible for the money we do give them.

1/26/2006 6:55:35 PM

Quote :

"is it based on their income or do they have to send stuff in "

cyrion: With Fairtax, the system is no longer based on income...it's based on how much you spend. You no longer have to report income to the gov't each year. You don't need to send in your receipts.

The states will collect the tax from retailers and send it to the feds. The retailers as well as the states get to keep a small portion for their collection efforts. Most states already have a system in place for collecting sales tax, so that's another big bureacracy we don't have to establish.

Granted, every tax system will have some people committing fraud. It's inevitable. But currently, it just takes one person to commit fraud..the individual tax-payer. Under FairTax it will take two to commit fraud--the buyer and the seller. Most retailers will not want to face jail and huge penalties just to help a customer rip off the gov't. It will be up to the sellers to report their sales properly..so the average person has little to no paperwork.

If you can get through the month purchasing only used goods, more power to you. The idea is that goods are only taxed once, at final point of sale.

All items purchased for re-sale or to manufacture other goods would not be taxed. Once these embedded taxes are removed from products and services, prices are predicted to lower to basically the same levels as before the tax went into effect. So your prices at the register will be about the same to a bit higher. Any tax increases will be felt immediately, so we will be more aware and sensitive to what our politicians are doing in D.C.

Quote :

"You propose a magical replacement for our tax system that will lower taxes for businesses and the wealthy, not raise working class taxes, keep taxes for the poor the same, and will still be revenue neutral"

The key thing to keep in mind, B-docks, is the tax base. The base of income earners is much smaller than the consumer base. So we will be collecting tax from more people on all new products and service. Foreign visitors will be contributing to our social security. Illegal aliens will be paying taxes (and not getting the prebate).

Quote :

"This plan will reduce taxes on businesses and the wealthy. Will middle and lower class taxes go up?"

I'm paraphrasing this answer from FairTax.org...

Quote :

"Most people are paying 23% or more today in taxes – much of it is just hidden from view. The income tax bracket most people fall into is 15 percent, and all wage earners pay 7.65 percent in payroll taxes. That’s 23 percent right there, without taking into account the 7.65 percent employer matching. On top of that, you have to add in all of the hidden taxes embedded in the price of everything you buy, from goods (averaging 22 percent) to services (averaging 25 percent). Effective tax rates vs. stated tax rates Because the 23-percent FairTax would not be imposed on necessities, an individual spending $28,808 would pay an effective tax rate of only 15.6 percent, not 23 percent. That same individual will pay 17.3 percent of a $28.808 income to federal taxes under current law."

1/26/2006 10:44:54 PM

Couldn't care less.

I SERIOUSLY do not want a high sales tax. I'd go for it if I seriously thought it would encourage the political system to reduce spending, but it won't work, so don't do it.

"We fought a war against big government and big government won."

1/26/2006 11:27:17 PM

Given Washington's typical love of our $$$ I predict that eventually Congress will "compromise"
on the fair tax. By "compromise" I mean they'll put the fair tax into play and keep the current income
taxes. They're politicians they can find a way to waste the extra money, they always have.

1/27/2006 12:13:32 AM

Quote :

""i still am waiting for someone to realistically address the huge loss of jobs. tax preparation, tax collection, auditing firms, tax lawyers, tax lobyists, tax software developers, etc.""

sounds good to me

make those jobs obsolete so those people can be put to work doing something useful

Quote :

"the poor who live on a check to check basis might have some real problems paying for things with a 23% markup when they wont get that cash back until the end of the month. it forces them to buy less now and "save" that money till the end of the month. many cant afford to do that on a daily basis."

it wouldn't be a full 23% markup. not effectively, at least. i don't feel like adding it up to figure out how much it would be, but i'm pretty confident that it wouldn't be a problem. plus, it would effectively only be an issue if they couldn't handle that first month of FairTax, and if that's a big problem, i'm sure it could be addressed.


I think there might be some major teething pains with this. It would shake up a lot of stuff. That's really my only concern about it. Other than that, I think it's a good idea from what I understand about it.

1/27/2006 12:49:09 AM

Quote :

"By "compromise" I mean they'll put the fair tax into play and keep the current income taxes. They're politicians they can find a way to waste the extra money, they always have."

So true. But spending controls (which are desperately needed) are the substance of another thread.

We will have to keep a close watch on those rascally politicians. At least tax increases will be less hidden since we will feel them quickly and painfully at the check-out lane.

Quote :

"..they'll put the fair tax into play and keep the current income taxes. "

There is language in the FairTax bill that clearly and firmly repeals income taxes, payroll taxes, capital gains etc. You do not have to repeal the 16th amendment for the FairTax bill to pass and get established. The 16th amendment only allows an income tax, it doesn't require one.

The goal is to first pass the FairTax bill which will eliminate the current system and replace it. Next, as we enjoy the fruits of the new system, we can work on the slower project of repealing the now-toothless 16th amendment.

But we will have to pay attention that money-hungry politicians don't start screwing around with the bill to try to keep both systems...even for one day, one month or one year. The bill is designed to replace the income tax immediately.

1/27/2006 1:48:07 AM

you never answered my questions so i eventually broke down and read it myself.

the rebate is based on their perceived spending for that type of household (so basically, it is based on income). this seems a lot more open to abuse by the average person without being actual abuse (they know they are sending you that check and so do you, no questions asked).

i can definately see more poor ppl struggling through on solely used goods and ramen noodles to save up for expensive items or personal savigs with the checks. this seems true for self-funded college students who's education expenses appear not to be taxed, but is the major portion of their expenses.

1/27/2006 8:50:41 AM

Quote :

"the rebate is based on their perceived spending for that type of household (so basically, it is based on income)"

The prebate is not based on income. The size of the rebate is determined by the Department of Health & Human Services’ poverty level multiplied by the tax rate.

I'm not clear on what you're trying to say about it being open to abuse. But any system will be open to abuse. The current system is horribly abused. The IRS estimates that they lose about 25% of income taxes due to fraud -and that doesn't include income from illegal activities. Under the FairTAx, even criminals will pay their fed tax when they purchase something with their il-gotten gains.

Quote :

"education expenses appear not to be taxed, "

Oh thanks, I'd forgotten about that benefit. The creators of the FairTax recognize that education is an investment in your future and is differetn from a retail purchase. So education tuition is tax-free. The idea is that the more you learn, the more you earn. The more you earn, the more you'll spend.

Quote :

"... poor ppl struggling through on solely used goods and ramen noodles to save up for expensive items or personal savigs with the checks."

That's definitely one strategy. There are many more. The FairTax will encourage personal savings. That's one of the great points-- you get to decide when and how much fed tax you pay by controlling your spending.

[Edited on January 27, 2006 at 10:46 AM. Reason : .]

1/27/2006 10:45:23 AM

all i gotta say is fuck the current tax system. this girl here came in bitching because she ONLY got back $2500 federal. she usually gets $4000. she PAID like $1800 in taxes last year. that means she got what she paid PLUS $700 out of someone elses taxes. fucking single moms drain on the economy bullshit.

1/27/2006 10:58:39 AM

read it wrong

Fuck the current tax system for other reasons, like making it easy for people to think that a 4000 dollar refund check is somehow better than a 1800 dollar refund check.

[Edited on January 27, 2006 at 11:02 AM. Reason : read it wrong. sorry]

1/27/2006 11:01:48 AM

thats just the way poor ppl think. you cant change that.

i just am not comortable with the idea of subsidizing some bitch that dropped out of high school to have a baby and will never contribute anything to our society.

1/27/2006 11:09:12 AM

Quote :

"...like making it easy for people to think that a 4000 dollar refund check is somehow better than a 1800 dollar refund check"

So true. Average people are so woefully uneducated on how our tax system works. And politicians & lobbyists love it that way. That's why many elected officials will fight the FairTax to the bitter end. It will reduce their power and control over us. The only thing that will bring thier support on-board is the threat to their job and thus their power.

1/27/2006 11:59:47 AM

my point was they werent saving their own money. they get (lets say) 2000 for the rebate check each month. they just dont buy anything and get that $2000. you are giving them money when they are contributing nothing. it is like grape's example, but even worse. i then noted that it could be especially abused by college students and similar individuals who's income mostly goes to non-taxable goods.

1/27/2006 1:28:57 PM

college students' expenditures are a drop in the bucket

1/27/2006 5:25:19 PM

Throughout this thread I keep reading that the FairTax will relive the burden of undue tax on the poor. I would really like to know the tax burden you are talking about.

I own two Liberty Tax Services in Charlotte, one in a predominatly poor area of town and one in a higher income area. The poor dont pay any tax besides social security, medicare, and sales tax. They hardly ever (and I mean ever) pay income tax. In fact the poor generally make money off the government. Have you ever heard of the Earned Income Credit? It gives people free money for getting off there lazy azz and working. Everyone who is poor gets it.

By the way this FairTax will never make it anywhere. There are way too many people against it and very few people are willing to take that risk because it would decimate our economy.

1/27/2006 5:44:44 PM

Quote :

"they get (lets say) 2000 for the rebate check each month. they just dont buy anything and get that $2000. you are giving them money "

Using the gov't's 2005 poverty spending levels, a single person (say a college student) will get a prebate of $183 per month. If you can keep from spending that month per month, you're pretty pretty good. A family of 4 would recieve about $554/month or $6651/year.

Quote :

"...The poor dont pay any tax... "

True, and under the Fairtax they will not only no longer pay income tax, but also no social security or medicare tax. I don't particularly approve, but the tradition and culture is such that we prop up the poor in this country. A tax system that does not preserve this aspect has no chance to pass.

Quote :

"it would decimate our economy."

It would actually really help our economy. Do you have a specific way in which FairTax would hurt our country?

1/27/2006 11:32:02 PM

Some flat tax proponent is on Charlie Rose right now.

1/28/2006 12:11:39 AM

^ sry i just dont agree with handing out 800 dollars worth of taxed consumer spending back to a single person each and every month with no worries.

1/28/2006 12:11:42 AM

Huh? The siren is tax free

1/28/2006 12:14:14 AM

i posted 3 seconds after you and you think im talking to you boon? i expected better

[Edited on January 28, 2006 at 8:38 AM. Reason : .]

1/28/2006 8:38:16 AM

Quote :

"1. It is regressive You can add in all the rebates you want, that won't change the taxed base. SALES TAXES ARE REGRESSIVE. This is because consumption level rises much more slowly than than disposable income. This is due to fixed consumption. To explain it more clearly, the poor and middle class are forced to spend more of their income in order to survive. They are being tax more because proportionally the taxed rate for the rich rises much slower than the proportional taxed rate for the poor and middle class. The blue line is disposable income, the purple line is taxed consumption, I assumed a 30% increase of spending (probably MUCH MUCH more than actual, but I didn't want to hear shit about my graph being misleading) "

The problem here comes with the definition of progressive / regressive. Progressive is a tax that is larger as a percentage of income for those with larger incomes. Regressive is the opposite when the amount of the tax is smaller as a percentage of income for people with larger incomes. What the above argument is trying to state is that low income families spend a higher portion of their income on goods and services while middle to high income families tend to save a portion of their income. Under the FairTax, A low income family may spend $25,000 on goods and services consuming 100% of their income but will pay a tax rate of 0%. A high income family may make $100,000 and spend only $80,000 on goods and services and save $20,000. They are consuming 80% of their income on goods and services and may pay a tax rate of 15%. They make the argument that since the low income family consumes 100% and the high income family consumes 80%, this is regressive as they are tax on a smaller percentage of their income they use for consumption. Here lies the problem - It is regressive on income but progressive on consumption. However, the low income family is paying 0% and the high income family is paying 15%. The definition was made under an income tax structure and reflects this. The basic meaning of progressive is "The rich pay more as a percentage". I think the FairTax does this and fits the common persons idea of progressive. In addition, it is important to note that this is a myopic timeline view. Eventually the saved $20,000 in the example above would have been spent and taxed, given to charity, or reinvested back into the economy. (insert sarcasm) Bad Bad Regressive Tax! I can see how this is just unfair.

2/15/2006 9:09:39 AM

I'd also like to add in the question... Which is better - Progressive on income or Progressive on consumption? In this question you have to add in the idea of wealth. The common thought is low income, low consumption or high income, high consumption. However, some may have high wealth but have low income. Under the current income tax system, someone with low income will pay a low % rate regardless of high wealth and consumption. Under the FairTax, wealth would be taxed at the rate which they consume. On the other end, you may have someone with medium income with low consumption. They are trying to save wealth for their future. Under the current system, they are taxed according to their income, medium rate. Under the FairTax, they are taxed according to their consumption and would have savings available during difficult times or for a lengthy retirement. It is important to look at these terms over the lifetime of a taxpayer.

2/15/2006 9:17:31 AM

Thirdly, Howboutno, I worked at a Liberty Tax Service in college, and I agree with you, there is no tax burden on the poor. But that's not the issue with the FairTax, it's supposed to be revenue neutral, and positive for all, so that's the reason for that.

I applaud your entrepreneurial spirit with your two Liberty Tax franchises. Though the FairTax may be bad for you currently, it would be GREAT for our economy. Conservative estimates at 10% GDP growth the FIRST year. And I'm sure you're an intelligent and obviously entrepreneurial person, so you will find a way to make a your money elsewhere.

2/15/2006 9:55:50 AM

the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few!!!

i dont see how some of you argue that it is better for each person, but overall wont change much. others come in and say "tough shit to you, but the economy will get better."

PS learn to fucking edit

2/15/2006 10:07:42 AM

Quote :

"Conservative estimates at 10% GDP growth the FIRST year"

But would this be because of the sales tax or simply because the tax structure was flattened and simplified?

Couldn't we just flatten and simplify the income tax system?

2/15/2006 10:13:47 AM