User not logged in - login - register
Home Calendar Books School Tool Photo Gallery Message Boards Users Statistics Advertise Site Info
go to bottom | |
 Message Boards » » The FairTax-Good for Both Liberals & Conservatives Page 1 2 3 [4] 5, Prev Next  
boonedocks
All American
5550 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"Of course, this does not yet take into account the "investment" portion of income. But there is another element of the system: the tax evidently doesn't apply to used purchases. Purchase a used car, and it is exempt from the tax. The rich don't buy used shit."


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


Your excuse is lame as hell. The rich will be just as likely to buy slightly used as the middle class will be. Probably more likely, since they tend to be cheap. Not to mention classic cars, antique furniture, art, etc.


While I'm on that note-- WHY ON EARTH WOULD ANYONE BUY A NEW CAR UNDER THIS TAX SYSTEM? Give me a car with 15k miles on it, please.



[Edited on February 17, 2006 at 8:28 AM. Reason : .]

2/17/2006 8:24:23 AM

cyrion
All American
27110 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"The answer given in the video is that under the previous system a large segment of the "rich" took advantage of hidden tax loop-holes and businesses took advantage of tax-subsidies. As such, many corporations and rich people already pay tax rates far lower than one would expect. The so called "Fair Tax" would eliminate all these tricks, ultimately increasing the tax rates for people that previously could afford lobbyists and tax attorneys."


why not just close the tax loopholes (as you find them) and lower the general taxes of everyone else? that seems revenue central and good pr for your campaign (though i guess you can argue lobbying and whatnot here).

either way, again im basically agreeing with boonedocks. what is to prevent abuse by selling cars with 1000 miles on them as "used." seems like the beuracracy would have to be almost as big to me, but i could be wrong.

i still dont like the idea of handing out checks to everyone and anyone thats a certain age with a SS card. seems like you're just hoping that they spend it back. are intarweb goods covered too? they could always relocate and then we've got an interesting issue on hand.

[Edited on February 17, 2006 at 9:34 AM. Reason : and we all know internet shopping is becoming more prevalent]

2/17/2006 9:33:22 AM

LoneSnark
All American
11950 Posts
user info
edit post

^^ If you had any economist in you, you'd already know the result of odd policies (such as this).

For starters, new stuff will be somewhat cheaper to manufacture (eliminates compliance costs for employers, eliminates the compounding effect of the various tax regimes, etc).
Nevertheless, these savings will not filter through for months, if not a year, so the cost of replacement for used items will have been increased. So, as an economist, when you have a finite market (used furniture) and the price of new furniture increases the result will be higher prices for used furniture.

But the effect should not be too painful as you get to take home your entire salary from day one instead of just 80% of it.

Ultimately, after many years, the economy will have adjusted to the new tax regime: many workers will keep their ungarnished wages, some workers will bid down their wages, prices will fall slightly, the government will lay off 3/4 of the IRS, and after-tax prices will have risen by about 18%.

The price differential between used and new will have increased slightly but you must remember: prices are set by what people will pay, not some magic unchangeable value. If everyone starts buying only used cars it will drive up the price of a used car until the people who previously would have purchased a new car go ahead and do so now. In other words, if the sales tax is huge (23%) then the MSRP of a new car will be lower than the sticker price for a used car. You won't notice because odds are the dealer will go ahead and factor in the tax before writting the price on the sticker, restoring the common sense notion of a new car being more expensive than a used car.

Quote :
"i still dont like the idea of handing out checks to everyone and anyone thats a certain age with a SS card. seems like you're just hoping that they spend it back."

We already have something called the EITC which everyone receives, the rebate check is merely a more explicit form.

Quote :
"what is to prevent abuse by selling cars with 1000 miles on them as "used.""

There is a fine distinction between used/new: "Has it been taxed before?" No one said it would eliminate enforcement, merely dramatically reduce it. Instead of hunting down 160 million wage earners, we only have to police about 2 million businesses.

{quote]are intarweb goods covered too?[/quote]
Only if they are new. That said, it will have national enforcement: buying something from the internet does not exempt you. Odds are, ebay will be changed to "assist" sellers distributing products that have not yet been taxed. The internet will be a "problem" when it comes to tax evasion, but no more so than already exists: internet sellers make money off their e-bay auctions then don't report it to the IRS because paypal and their bank only report transactions above $10,000 to the IRS.

[Edited on February 17, 2006 at 10:03 AM. Reason : ^]

2/17/2006 9:50:15 AM

LoneSnark
All American
11950 Posts
user info
edit post

http://www4.ncsu.edu/~gsparson/data/fairtax3.avi
video
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~gsparson/data/fairtax.htm
tax progression

2/17/2006 10:31:54 AM

EarthDogg
All American
3989 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"what is to prevent abuse by selling cars with 1000 miles on them as "used.""


Items with titles will be fairly easy to track. Each car gets taxed once, so if you BUY a new car, pay the tax and resell it...no tax for the new buyer. But a dealer cannot drive his car around for 1000 miles and then sell it as used--because the tax wasn't paid yet. There will have to be proof recorded on the title that the tax was paid at some point by someone.

Quote :
"WHY ON EARTH WOULD ANYONE BUY A NEW CAR "


There will always be a market for new items. Why do people pay huge amounts for new technology, such as plasma TVs --because they want to be the cool guy, the first one on the block etc. Americans love to buy nice things.

Quote :
"why not just close the tax loopholes "


Talk about a lobbyist's dream. It would take a long long time before congress could decide which loopholes need closing. Remember that for every loophole, there is a special interest group highly motivated to keep it in place. The current tax system is so screwed up, it needs to be scrapped.

Quote :
"i still dont like the idea of handing out checks to everyone "


Currently we have the Earned Income Credit which basically pays poor people a tax refund even when they haven't paid any taxes. Welfare to the poor is a seperate issue. Under our current political culture, no new tax system would have a chance at all unless the poor are off the hook.

Quote :
"are intarweb goods covered too?"


You bet. Of course, there will be cheating just as we have now. But bona fide businesses selling on the web will be required to send in the tax. Private citizens selling to one another has always been hard to control. But the fraud isn't high enough for any state yet to scrap it's sales tax system. It's still a very efficient way to collect taxes.

Here's a link to a informative CNBC interview with John Linder, sponsor of the bill, and a flat-tax guy. http://72.20.140.231/video/CNBC041505.wmv

[Edited on February 17, 2006 at 11:35 AM. Reason : .]

2/17/2006 11:06:36 AM

1337 b4k4
All American
10032 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"While I'm on that note-- WHY ON EARTH WOULD ANYONE BUY A NEW CAR UNDER THIS TAX SYSTEM? Give me a car with 15k miles on it, please.
"


Never ever ever underestimate the power that "new" holds in a consumer's mind. Where I work, we often have open box versions of stuff we sell. Same device, checked and certified by our techs, same waranty, same eligability for extended waranty, the only difference between it and a new computer is that someone opened the box before deciding they didn't want it. Open box items are cheaper than new, the discount often eliminating tax and then some, but people don't want it. They want a new box. People like having new things.

Furthermore, where are you going to get your car with 15k on it without someone having bought new?

2/17/2006 11:35:32 AM

JonHGuth
Suspended
39171 Posts
user info
edit post

http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/06/pf/taxes/consumptiontax_0510/

2/17/2006 12:42:00 PM

boonedocks
All American
5550 Posts
user info
edit post

So lower manufacturing costs, combined with dumb comsumers, will compinsate for the fact that auto companies will have to take a ~20% hit in gross income in order to survive the adjustment period? Or is the best scenario on ein which the cost of used cars skyrocket?

Oh, and will houses be taxed at 23% as well, because if so, the Fair Tax is truly the best idea ever.


Quote :
"Talk about a lobbyist's dream. It would take a long long time before congress could decide which loopholes need closing. Remember that for every loophole, there is a special interest group highly motivated to keep it in place. The current tax system is so screwed up, it needs to be scrapped."


Yeah, congress will never be able to close tax loopholes, but trashing our ENTIRE SYSTEM in favor of an unproven system advocated by the nation's top teir of wackos is a done deal.

P.S. few political arguments make me chuckle more than the "it doesn't matter if we reduce the tax burden for the wealthy, most of the them don't pay taxes anyway."




[Edited on February 17, 2006 at 2:12 PM. Reason : .]

2/17/2006 2:10:30 PM

EarthDogg
All American
3989 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"Oh, and will houses be taxed at 23% as well "


New houses will have the tax embedded into the price, yes. But If you buy a used House (one which has had the tax paid on it once already) you will owe no tax. Housing prices are predicted to generally fall about the same amount of the tax, so prices will remain about the same as they are now. Plus- since you are taking home your entire paycheck, you will be able to save up for downpayments much quicker.

Quote :
"but trashing our ENTIRE SYSTEM in favor of an unproven system advocated by the nation's top teir of wackos is a done deal."


The current tax system is trashing us. It doesn't need tweaking...it needs replacing. It's gotten too big, too complicated, it's hurting us as a economic power...and many Americans are ready to try something new.

2/17/2006 11:16:24 PM

boonedocks
All American
5550 Posts
user info
edit post

best idea ever

2/17/2006 11:24:42 PM

Kris
All American
36908 Posts
user info
edit post

So 4 more pages and several topics later and I still haven't gotten an adequate response to the 3 failures of this system I point out in my old thread.

I even emailed Fairtax.org and 3 of the professors that support it, and I never heard a response.

The fact is that any large scale tax system MUST tax income. Not taxing income makes the system regressive, anyone that says otherwise does not understand percentages. It also doesn't work to only tax final goods, everyone would incorporated themselves and avoid tax on most every major purchase, I mean some people do that now anyways just to avoid 2% and 6% taxes. This is why every modern government in the world has income taxes.

2/18/2006 12:21:56 AM

EarthDogg
All American
3989 Posts
user info
edit post

Kris:
llboyd asked your very questions at FairTaxGroups.com

http://fairtaxgroups.com/index.php?topic=146.0

Check out the site, you'll have hours of fun asking them all of your other challenging questions.

Quote :
"everyone would incorporated themselves and avoid tax on most every major purchase,"


Instead of watching 150 million income taxpayers, the gov't will only have to keep an eye on about 15 million tax collecting businesses. You'll have to get a fed tax ID to be considered a business. You might get away with it or you might not. KRIS inc., with lots of purchases and few sales, might get some attention pretty quickly.

[Edited on February 18, 2006 at 12:42 AM. Reason : .]

2/18/2006 12:42:14 AM

boonedocks
All American
5550 Posts
user info
edit post

Ok, so we're not firing the income tax bureaucracy ofterall?

That was literally the only attractive aspect of this whole thing.


P.S.- that forum is hilarious. It's like 30 EarthDogg's all in one page, and they still can't even give a straight answer even to each other. It's like a freaking used car salesmans' forum.

In response to the "it's repessive" argument:

Quote :
"The FairTax is progressive. The more you spend, the more you pay in taxes. Period."


Quote :
"Many folks concern themselves about percentages to support their dissapproval of the Fair Tax concept. i.e., the regressive argument

I don't earn nor spend a percent. I earn and spend dollars.

What matter is it to our pocket books if how much we earn or spend is more or less than someone else?

This is just class warfare at work."


[Edited on February 18, 2006 at 11:41 AM. Reason : lmao zedong]

2/18/2006 11:32:51 AM

Kris
All American
36908 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"llboyd asked your very questions at FairTaxGroups.com"


and I got better responses here than he did there

Quote :
"Instead of watching 150 million income taxpayers, the gov't will only have to keep an eye on about 15 million tax collecting businesses."


that's going to change to 150 million tax collecting businesses as soon as you institute this stupid plan.

Quote :
"KRIS inc., with lots of purchases and few sales, might get some attention pretty quickly."


KRIS inc. makes no taxable sales as he only deals with other businesses, and thus only produces intermediate goods.

Quote :
"I don't earn nor spend a percent. I earn and spend dollars."


I love that.
How do you tip waiters and how do salesmen make money?

[Edited on February 18, 2006 at 12:48 PM. Reason : ]

2/18/2006 12:47:22 PM

kwsmith2
All American
2696 Posts
user info
edit post

The Fair Tax is a good idea in principle. That is a tax system based on taxing consumption is preferable to one based on taxing income.


Kris has pointed out that the tax must be regressive at some point along the distribution. This is true in terms of collections. However,

(1) You can place the regressivity line whereever you want. That is the tax can be progressive up to about $150,000 and then start to become regressive. I am not too tempted to cry about regressivity issues between the rich and the near-rich

(2) It is regressive only in terms of collection. The regressivity stems from the fact that the rich consume less of their income than do the poor. But if they don't consume it, then what do they do with it? They must invest it.

When you invest resources you don't lose your claim on them but you do lose your use of them. Instead of you using them "society" uses them. You retian a claim but it is only a claim. In fact, if you never come to collect your claim then in terms of actual resource usage you have donated your stuff to the collective.

In practice the wealthy hope that they and their children will get to slowly recollect their claim over generations. However, as they do they will consume it and pay tax on it. While it is still out in the collective use, there is no reason to tax it because you are hurting the collective.



Now that all being said the fair tax has its problems

Number one is that putting the entire burden of taxation on the retailer creates to much incentive for abuse. Selling off the books is simply too profitable.

Instead their should probably be a destination based VAT (Value Added Tax). That is seller pays the tax at every stage but gets a credit for the tax paid so far. The result is that you only owe taxes when you sell something for more than you bought it for. That is you only pay taxes on the added value of the product.

Its sort of like a capital gains tax on everything. It has the same effect as taxing comsumption. Yet it puts less of a burden on the retailer. Retailing is a penny-business anway and so the actual tax paid by the retailer is small.

[Edited on February 18, 2006 at 2:58 PM. Reason : .]

2/18/2006 2:55:32 PM

cyrion
All American
27110 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"KRIS inc. makes no taxable sales as he only deals with other businesses, and thus only produces intermediate goods."


final products = trash and excriment. all natural hippy business.

2/18/2006 2:56:31 PM

1337 b4k4
All American
10032 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"KRIS inc. makes no taxable sales as he only deals with other businesses, and thus only produces intermediate goods.
"


That wouldn't work though. In order for something to be intermediate it must be used in the production of something that you are going to sell. If you don't sell anything that uses what you buy it would have to be taxed.

2/18/2006 6:04:57 PM

Kris
All American
36908 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"In order for something to be intermediate it must be used in the production of something that you are going to sell. If you don't sell anything that uses what you buy it would have to be taxed."


No. You don't understand what an intermediate good is. For example the actual building that a product is sold in is an intermediate good. The trucks used to transport a product are intermediate goods. Most business to business purchases are intermediate goods.

2/18/2006 7:15:24 PM

bgmims
All American
5895 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"The fact is that any large scale tax system MUST tax income. Not taxing income makes the system regressive, anyone that says otherwise does not understand percentages."


Not taxing income would generally make it "regressive" in the sense that people use it (even though a true regressive tax would actually charge higher rates at lower levels, kinda like commisions) EXCEPT for simple exceptions you can make. First, you could eliminate the tax on food and other items that poor people tend to spend a large percentage of their income on. You can have credits against the first several thousand dollars of expenditures for poor people so they get it back. Additional taxes on "luxury" items. There are really simple ways to change the structure of the tax such that wealthier people pay more. It would be much easier to implement and in my opinion, much better for society.

I guess you'll still need the bleeding social security tax though, because that piece of shit won't go away until people wake up. If you look at the major corporations with defined benefit pension plans, which is what the SS system is, you'll see it is bankrupting them all. Its because the system itself is stupid. Proof positive - if you're in the senate/house you are exempt from SS tax and the SS system. Why? Because the system is stupid.

2/18/2006 7:42:56 PM

kwsmith2
All American
2696 Posts
user info
edit post

^^

Under most systems your truck is not exempt. Usually, it is defined as a retail sales tax, not a consumer goods sales tax. The truck is bought retail.

That is equipment, machinery and software are not exempt from most versions of the retail sales tax. Under many versions, fixed investment (offices, factories) are not exempt either. In this way the tax is basiclly like taking a percentage cut off of GDP.

2/18/2006 8:03:31 PM

Kris
All American
36908 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"Under most systems your truck is not exempt."


I know for a fact that under the current system now you can get a business truck tax free, even though it is purchased retail.

2/18/2006 8:43:47 PM

LoneSnark
All American
11950 Posts
user info
edit post

^ Yes, and under the current system many services are tax-exempt as well. Or are you saying that just because the current system has such exemptions any and all systems must have similar exemptions?

2/18/2006 9:51:01 PM

Kris
All American
36908 Posts
user info
edit post

No, I'm saying that if fairtax is completely set on removing their so called "embedded taxes", they aren't going to be able to tax intermediate goods.

2/18/2006 11:55:45 PM

EarthDogg
All American
3989 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"even though a true regressive tax would actually charge higher rates at lower levels,"


And that is why the FairTax is progressive. The poor pay zero tax, and the tax rate moves up from there to the highest rate of 23%. The highest anyone will be taxed is 23%- most of us will be somewhere below that rate -once you account for the prebate.

Quote :
"... putting the entire burden of taxation on the retailer creates too much incentive for abuse. Selling off the books is simply too profitable. "


It won't be too profitable if you get caught. States will be collecting the Fairtax from retailers and passing it on to the feds. States are pretty good at keeping a close eye on on its retailers. Many States have been using sales taxes for years. The incentive for abuse must be generally in check since most states are satisfied with the results.

Quote :
"Instead their should probably be a destination based VAT "


VATs are usually hidden taxes, collected at each stage of production. It would be very easy for gov't to raise taxes on the public without their knowledge. The FairTax is much more transparent. Tax increases will be painfully noticeable very quickly.

Quote :
"Most business to business purchases are intermediate goods."


This is true. Business to business transactions will not be taxed.
American businesses would have the advantage over foreign competitors of having no federal tax component in the price of their products. And no more fed tax compliance costs will make us even more competitive. Foreign capital will begin flowing like never before to our shores, creating more jobs.

Quote :
"you could eliminate the tax on food and other items ..."


Exempting one product over another opens the door again for the same lobbyists who have gamed the current tax code for their special interests. Also, the wealthy spend much more money on food, clothing, housing and medical care than the poor. Exempting these categories would give the "evil rich" a substantial advantage.

Quote :
"that forum is hilarious. It's like 30 EarthDogg's "


They aren't all supporters there. I've seen some strong opponents voicing their concerns.

What it is hilarious is watching the strong negative reaction Kris is getting there as he posts with the traditional SoapBox rudeness and lack of civility we all enjoy so much here.

2/19/2006 12:01:02 AM

LoneSnark
All American
11950 Posts
user info
edit post

^ Yes, but the purpose of taxation is to raise money, not teach the public that government has costs.

As such, a single VAT would be a much better system.

2/19/2006 12:10:54 AM

EarthDogg
All American
3989 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"a single VAT would be a much better system."


I'm curious as to why you think that? What makes a VAT desirable?

2/19/2006 12:14:10 AM

cyrion
All American
27110 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"No, I'm saying that if fairtax is completely set on removing their so called "embedded taxes", they aren't going to be able to tax intermediate goods."


that was my point back when the baker example was used. if you dont tax um, it is open to abuse or at least lobbying/questionable holes. if you do, you get embedded taxes.

2/19/2006 9:02:49 AM

kwsmith2
All American
2696 Posts
user info
edit post

The VAT is superior because it doesn't force collections all at one point.

Suppose you are furniture retailer selling couches. Before tax price $2000. After tax price $2460. You can earn $430 just by selling a single couch under the table. That is horrible pressure to put on one indivdual.

In addition, there is always confusion about whether the purchaser should be tax exempt. What if the pruchased item is going to be used to perform a service. Is the item retail or wholesale? How are you going to treat equipment, machinery and software?

Are you really going to require a flower girl on the street to remit her 23% in taxes.

Most of these issues vanish with the VAT because the tax you are responcible for is proportional to the size of your business. Small retailers have small Value Added.

2/19/2006 9:19:11 AM

LoneSnark
All American
11950 Posts
user info
edit post

For example: I am Wal-Mart. my average markup is 20%. The VAT is 20%. My effective tax rate is 4%. I would have to be an idiot to risk going to prison to save 4 cents on the dollar. So would my distributer, my manufacturer, etc. etc.

There are more payers, yes, which means more people to keep track of. However, the incentive to cheat is dramatically reduced.

Also, the trouble of the internet is dramatically reduced. So what if they snuck the products out the back door at the assembly plant. We have already taxed it at the parts maker, the resource extractor, the shipper, etc. Yes, we didn't get to tax the final product at 20%, but we did get 10% of the product, good enough until they get caught.

The only drawback is that the average tax payer would then have even less idea how much government really costs.

2/19/2006 10:43:45 AM

EarthDogg
All American
3989 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"Are you really going to require a flower girl on the street to remit her 23% in taxes."


Is the flower girl currently reporting her income to the IRS? Is the flower girl paying her 15% social security tax on her income? Any system will have some fraud.

Quote :
"Suppose you are furniture retailer selling couches. Before tax price $2000. After tax price $2460. You can earn $430 just by selling a single couch under the table"


I'm confused here. In your scenario, is the retailer collecting the tax and then not sending it to the state? If so, he will eventually get caught reporting incorrect sales.

Or is he giving the seller a break and not charging the tax? Most retailers are not going to risk their business just to give some customer an illegal break on a price. The penalty for cheating will outweigh the pressure to cheat for most retailers.

Quote :
"The VAT is superior"


...from FairTax.org:
Quote :
"Vat...It taxes every stage of production. It is much more complex, and is typically hidden from the retail consumer.
Second, in industrialized countries that have a VAT, it coexists with high-rate income tax, payroll and many other taxes that, in some instances, have led to marginal tax rates as high as 70 percent.
Third, all other industrialized countries, except Australia and Japan, have a much larger tax burden than the U.S., which requires higher rates and makes tax administration much more difficult. Lastly, a VAT is a lobbyist’s dream, allowing them to install their loopholes unbeknownst to the purchaser. A retail sales tax, in contrast, is a lobbyist’s nightmare, applied as it is under the bright lights of the retail counter."


I would prefer the transparancy of the Fairtax. I get to see what I'm paying for the federal gov't everytime I buy something. I think hiding our tax burden, eaking it out a little at a time, through withholding - as well as making the income tax system so damn confusing has allowed politicians to keep inceasing their take unbeknownst to most taxpayers.

[Edited on February 19, 2006 at 10:56 AM. Reason : .]

2/19/2006 10:55:45 AM

LoneSnark
All American
11950 Posts
user info
edit post

There are two problems here: raising tax money to fund government, and keeping government from giving away the shop.

We are merely pointing out that a VAT is superior when it comes to raising tax money to fund government. You are correct, as we have stated, a sales tax would make government activity more public and more difficult "giving away the shop."

So, our point is simple: implimenting a VAT and then finding some other way of reigning in government. Only if none can be found should we give up the better system.

For example, we will probably have to pass an amendment to the constitution to do this, it should read thusly:
Quote :
"section 1: Amendment XVI is hereby repealed.
section 2: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes from all duly constituted business in proportion to the Value Added by the stage of production, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
section 3: This Value Added Tax shall be applied without descrimation to all businesses regardless of location, activity, or ultimate destination at a uniform rate to be determined by appropriate legislation.
section 4: This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress."


[Edited on February 19, 2006 at 11:45 AM. Reason : q]

2/19/2006 11:45:08 AM

EarthDogg
All American
3989 Posts
user info
edit post

I prefer the Fairtax, but A VAT tax would still be much better than the income tax.

The VAT tax would have to be clearly stated on all sales receipts as they do in Canada. Every time they buy a beer or a hockey stick, they get to see how much VAT tax they are paying. This feature has been crucial in restraining their country's money-hungry politicians.
Canada has about a 7% VAT- clearly stated on all receipts. VATs in Europe are around 20% and not stated on sales receipts.

A VAT tax would also have to include the repeal of the 16th amendment. Most VATs were added on to existing income taxes.- this would truly be a nightmare if done here. To sell the plan, crafty politicians would offer to lower income taxes and start out with a lower VAT. Then the lobbyists would move in and work on gradually increasing both taxes.

[Edited on February 19, 2006 at 9:30 PM. Reason : .]

2/19/2006 9:29:54 PM

mathman
All American
1631 Posts
user info
edit post

^ I agree, there should be more visibility of taxes. For instance, it makes me a little sick every time
I hear people happy about how much $$ they are getting in there tax refund. It was your money to begin with, you shouldn't be happy that the government overcharged you for the past year. We ought to get back to paying taxes once a year so people could feel the pain of it more and think harder about why government should be smaller.

I am of course talking about those people which actually paid taxes, not the rediculous "tax return" of those people who are "poor" enough to get a "refund". Many of my relatives lie about there income so they can make money on the government. Lately they make about $4000-$5000 each year! Just a blank check rewarding them for cheating the tax system. Lovely. It is an often misunderstood statisitic that indian immigrants to this country make the most $$ of newly immigrated peoples, the truth is that Chinese immigrants make much more, they're just not so stupid to report it to the IRS. This is why you must pay cash in Chinatown.

At the very least we need to close this loophole and stop paying tax cheats money.

2/19/2006 11:37:34 PM

EarthDogg
All American
3989 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"We ought to get back to paying taxes once a year so people could feel the pain of it more and think harder about why government should be smaller. "


Excellent! That comment wins the EarthDogg quote-of-the-page award for this thread.

2/20/2006 12:13:40 AM

LoneSnark
All American
11950 Posts
user info
edit post

^ Wouldn't work. The fact is, it is human nature: we see others earning far more than us in life and we resent it. We don't mind paying excessive taxes because we imagine those we resent paying far more.

If you want to really fight against taxation then you must personify the "cheater" because the only thing we hate more than the success of others is playing the chump. The quickest way to illicit tax reform is if everytime anyone filed a tax return they imagined their boss laughing all the way to the tax attorney's office.

Updated Amendment (getting long, anyone think it should be shortened?):
section 1: Amendment XVI is hereby repealed.
section 2: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes from all duly constituted businesses in proportion to the Value Added by the immediate stage of production, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
section 3: This Value Added Tax shall be applied without descrimation to all businesses regardless of location, activity, or ultimate destination at a uniform rate to be determined by appropriate legislation.
section 4: The total sum of taxes collected upon all items shall be listed separately upon the bill of sale.
section 5: This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.

Any further additions necessary? I was hoping to send it to my congressman.

2/20/2006 1:14:33 AM

llboyd
Veteran
282 Posts
user info
edit post

Good FairTax white paper:

http://www.fairtax.org/pdfs/Tax_compliance_facts.pdf

2/22/2006 10:22:44 AM

beatsunc
All American
8870 Posts
user info
edit post

fairtax is not that great but better than the current system imo

4/15/2015 6:25:06 PM

dtownral
All American
19904 Posts
user info
edit post

no one cares that your opinion prefers regressive taxes

4/15/2015 6:32:57 PM

moron
All American
30115 Posts
user info
edit post

Not sure why anyone talks about the Fair Tax anymore, when both parties claim to care about growing Inequality.

Fair Tax would make that problem worse in every way.

4/15/2015 6:55:00 PM

synapse
play so hard
53014 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"when both parties claim to care about growing Inequality."


beatsunc gives 0 fucks about that.

4/15/2015 7:25:25 PM

beatsunc
All American
8870 Posts
user info
edit post

^false

fairtax could create a shit ton of jobs which would help the less fortunate.

also, synapse, as someone who claims to care about campaign finance corruption, the fairtax would eliminate billions in funds corporations have to pay to keep their loopholes.

4/16/2015 5:49:34 AM

moron
All American
30115 Posts
user info
edit post

obama has overseen some of the biggest job creation in history, and it hasn't helped inequality.

you also create jobs by giving money to the poor and middle class, not the rich.

4/16/2015 1:52:55 PM

OmarBadu
zidik
24859 Posts
user info
edit post

until i learned about the ridiculous credits / deductions that can be purchased like film credits and conservation easements i was more pro fairtax - i'm now pro loophole with our current system

4/16/2015 2:22:23 PM

synapse
play so hard
53014 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"^false"


I've never once heard you say otherwise.

4/16/2015 2:36:05 PM

beatsunc
All American
8870 Posts
user info
edit post

^logic fail

4/16/2015 5:19:03 PM

theDuke866
All American
51141 Posts
user info
edit post

^^^ tell me more? I though there were basically no loopholes in the FairTax system.

Quote :
"Not sure why anyone talks about the Fair Tax anymore, when both parties claim to care about growing Inequality.

Fair Tax would make that problem worse in every way.
"


Hmmm. Not sure about that. The FairTax would be much better for the "working wealthy" (say, the 200k-500k or so crowd), true. That's a good thing in my book anyway, because they have always gotten fucked hard by the tax code. The truly rich, I'm not sure what the net effect would be. On one hand, they spend a lower percentage of their money, and this is a consumption tax. On the other hand, as it stands now, they're mostly getting taxed at the long-term capital gains/dividends rate.

You have to consider how much revenue gets generated throughout their retirements and even after after their estates are willed to their heirs, too.


At any rate, I like the "prebate" aspect of the FairTax, but I'd rather structure things with a VAT than a national sales tax. Either that, or a hybrid system of a greatly simplified income tax + VAT.

4/16/2015 9:35:32 PM

OmarBadu
zidik
24859 Posts
user info
edit post

^ I meant loopholes with the current system

4/16/2015 10:15:27 PM

moron
All American
30115 Posts
user info
edit post

^^


The current tax system is very friendly to that invoke range-- not surprising considering the incomes of people in congress.

The vast majority of Americans are really poor compared to most people here. They don't have money saved up, and any putting hundreds or thousands of dollars more tax burden is seriously crippling. It forces people into debt or away from education, it keeps them in low paying jobs. It's a vicious cyclone of negative effects. Helping this demographic should be the goal of the tax code. It's not the governments job to try and punish people for being poor, and it seems like conservatives are happy to use the govnerment for this purpose.

But a fair tax with a prebate is just an attempt at creating a progressive tax but not calling it that. It's equally susceptible to the criticisms of the current tax, and would eventually just become a tax system with deductions and credits after a few congressional cycles. If you believe in the prebate, just embrace a real progressive tax code and advoCate policies that emphasize fairness.

4/17/2015 12:48:30 AM

beatsunc
All American
8870 Posts
user info
edit post

Income tax violates spirit of 4th amendment. Need a warrant to see personal papers

4/18/2017 1:22:45 PM

synapse
play so hard
53014 Posts
user info
edit post

nice bump

4/18/2017 2:36:35 PM

 Message Boards » The Soap Box » The FairTax-Good for Both Liberals & Conservatives Page 1 2 3 [4] 5, Prev Next  
go to top | |
Admin Options : move topic | lock topic

© 2017 by The Wolf Web - All Rights Reserved.
The material located at this site is not endorsed, sponsored or provided by or on behalf of North Carolina State University.
Powered by CrazyWeb v2.37 - our disclaimer.