The Fair Tax

135

Comments

  • desandrews
    desandrews Posts: 143
    Despite the personal financial benefits of this plan, I think linking taxation to consumption is a poor idea. It would be better than the current system wherein taxes are linked to little more than political whims, but that's not a tough standard to beat.

    What about the effects on businesses? We all know that businesses don't pay taxes, they pass them on to their consumers. We also know that most other governments don't tax companies for their sells overseas, we do. Establishing the Fair Tax plan would put US companies in the ultimate advantage. They would be able to sell their products at a competitive price and may change America's number one export, manufacturing jobs to something else.
  • Pacomc79
    Pacomc79 Posts: 9,404
    If you work 2 jobs and make 40K a year, I am glad you aren't in charge of Tax policy.

    One of my jobs is nearly free. I'm working in Sports Talk Radio. I only earn about 2G's a year on that right now because it's mostly promotions.

    My other pays about 40K.

    I appreciate your patronization though.

    Come up with a better idea and we'll talk.
    My Girlfriend said to me..."How many guitars do you need?" and I replied...."How many pairs of shoes do you need?" She got really quiet.
  • Pacomc79 wrote:
    Once the embedded taxes are removed free market competition will drive the prices down.

    Huh? This makes no sense. The "Fair" Tax introduces embedded taxes. It doesn't remove them. Right now corporate taxes are paid on profits. Effectively, you will now quadruple taxes on a corporation's cost of goods sold. So if a business is high-margin like my own, you basically eliminate my tax burden since my cost of goods sold is largely just untaxed salaries. However, a business whose products are dependent on taxable widgets gets ass-raped by your 20% tax or whatever it is, thereby forcing them to dramatically increase prices. And since the majority of the products purchased by the poor are low-margin items like food and disposable products rather than services, they'll bear the brunt of those price increases.
  • desandrews
    desandrews Posts: 143
    Mr Buffett can only "consume" so much. Lets just say he's got expensive taste (he doesn't). He lives extravigantly, and spends tens, HUNDREDS of millions of dollars a year on Yachts, Hookers, Blow, and Pearl Jam posters.

    The dude makes several Billion dollars a year.

    For your arguement, he would need to CONSUME 1.52 times his income.

    What about the rest of my argument? Are you trying to ensure the loopholes of the rich are ensured while acting like you're for the poor? I'm citing real examples of how the poor will be helped, you're citing examples of how the rich won't be hurt. I think it's a guise to ensure the privileges afforded to rich are not screwed up. You're not even acknowledging any of the benefits to the poor I mentioned. I'm not convinced that's your main concern.

    The question still lingers: What's the official purpose of taxation? To provide services to society or to manipulate income disparity?
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    Much Like Malcom Forbes' idea in the 1990s.

    Heres the reality.. it lowers the tax rate of the rich, and raises the rate on the poor.

    Thats the bottom line.

    The only reason it has more than scant public support is because Americans are tought from birth that if you work hard, you can make it rich. And when they make it rich, they dont want to be "unfaily" taxed.

    But the reality is, in this country, societies biggest ill (beside social conservatism) is income disparity and the social stresses it brings. The "Fair" Tax does nothing but increase the problem.

    If you dont believe me, check this out:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World_Map_Gini_coefficient_with_legend_2.png

    what the fuck is a gini coefficient? and if the taxes for both go down, that's a good thing. the wealth divide might increase somewhat (or it might not, rich people buy a lot more expensive shit that would be taxed), but those at the bottom would pay nothing in taxes. nothing. how does that hurt the poor?
  • desandrews
    desandrews Posts: 143
    If you work 2 jobs and make 40K a year, I am glad you aren't in charge of Tax policy.

    Are you fucking kidding me? We're trying to have an intelligent conversation and this is where you go? Un-fucking-believable.
  • Pacomc79
    Pacomc79 Posts: 9,404
    Huh? This makes no sense. The "Fair" Tax introduces embedded taxes. It doesn't remove them. Right now corporate taxes are paid on profits. Effectively, you will now quadruple taxes on a corporation's cost of goods sold. So if a business is high-margin like my own, you basically eliminate my tax burden since my cost of goods sold is largely just untaxed salaries. However, a business whose products are dependent on taxable widgets gets ass-raped by your 20% tax or whatever it is, thereby forcing them to dramatically increase prices. And since the majority of the products purchased by the poor are low-margin items like food and disposable products rather than services, they'll bear the brunt of those price increases.

    FFG, I'll talk about it later, It's easier to explain if you get a chance to read the book or check out the website, I've got to do some work now. Cheers.
    My Girlfriend said to me..."How many guitars do you need?" and I replied...."How many pairs of shoes do you need?" She got really quiet.
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    if you only pay 5500 a year in Federal taxes, then you really dont make a ton of money (even with a mortgage and kids, you cant make more than 75K)

    You will ABSOLUTELY pay more under the "Fair" tax. Thats called math.

    Such a big proponent now?

    you keep saying that, but you show absolutely zero math to support it. again, how do the poor lose money on this tax?
  • desandrews wrote:
    What about the effects on businesses? We all know that businesses don't pay taxes, they pass them on to their consumers.

    This is an overstatement that is entirely dependent on perspective. Right now, my business is taxed on its profits. Those profits come out of the pockets of consumers, so you could say that consumers are just paying those taxes. But at the same time, other business are paying those consumers, so you can just say that other businesses are paying my taxes. And so on and so on.

    Labor pays for taxation, and to differentiate between corporate labor and consumer labor is kind of silly since both are effectively the same thing.
    We also know that most other governments don't tax companies for their sells overseas, we do. Establishing the Fair Tax plan would put US companies in the ultimate advantage. They would be able to sell their products at a competitive price and may change America's number one export, manufacturing jobs to something else.

    If you want to put US companies at the ultimate advantage, just stop taxing them altogether. But do that because corporations aren't actually people. They can't vote, they don't have rights. Their votes and their rights extend from the votes and rights of the people who work for them, and those people are already paying taxes - corporate taxation is redundant taxation. Eliminating a corporate tax system makes a hell of a lot more sense than just trying to rig a contrived system in their favor, especially when the unintended consequences of this plan will screw over a lot of businesses.
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    All fair. But if you think this "Fair" Tax thing isn't going to seriously modify the taxation levels of most people, you're being sold a bag of crap. The "Fair" Tax would cause my personal taxes to shrink and my corporate taxes to almost nothing. Furthermore, it would cause a lot of margin-sensitive business's taxes to skyrocket, and a lot of middle class taxes to increase greatly or shrink greatly, all depending on consumption habits. Overall revenue neutrality may be possible, but individual tax neutrality isn't going to be.

    Despite the personal financial benefits of this plan, I think linking taxation to consumption is a poor idea. It would be better than the current system wherein taxes are linked to little more than political whims, but that's not a tough standard to beat.

    what is wrong with that? consumption seems to be a helluva good way to base the tax system. you wanna throw your money around on lots of luxury items, fine, you can clearly afford a larger tax burden. you wanna pinch pennies and amass fortunes eating nothing but ramen for decades, more power to you. that seems infinitely better than an arbitrary income tax. it's probably as close to a use tax as we can get.
  • you keep saying that, but you show absolutely zero math to support it. again, how do the poor lose money on this tax?

    he said he lives "paycheck to paycheck" which means he is consuming all of the income that me makes every pay period. He consumes 100% of his income. That means he pays 23% of 40K which is 9200


    Thats more than 5500 that he pays now, correct?
    MSG 9/11/98, Jones Beach 8/24/2000, Saratoga 8/30/2000, Albany 4/29/03, Boston 7/2/03, Philly 7/5/03, MSG 7/9/03, Boston 9/29/04, Montreal 9/15/05, Albany 5/12/06, Hartford 5/13/06, Boston 5/24/06, Boston 5/25/06, Hartford 6/27/08, Boston 6/30/08, EV Boston 8/2/08
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    desandrews wrote:
    Are you fucking kidding me? We're trying to have an intelligent conversation and this is where you go? Un-fucking-believable.

    dont you know you can measure someone's intelligence and worth by their income? poor people are stupid, that's why they're poor! that's also why we have to have the government feed them and clothe them, becos they're incapable of doing it themselves.
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    he said he lives "paycheck to paycheck" which means he is consuming all of the income that me makes every pay period. He consumes 100% of his income. That means he pays 23% of 40K which is 9200


    Thats more than 5500 that he pays now, correct?

    he said he doesn't live paycheck to paycheck. and i was not asking about him, im asking how a person who pays tax now is worse off if they have to pay no tax at all?
  • Pacomc79
    Pacomc79 Posts: 9,404
    I do not live anywhere close to paycheck to paycheck. I'll leave it at that.
    My Girlfriend said to me..."How many guitars do you need?" and I replied...."How many pairs of shoes do you need?" She got really quiet.
  • desandrews
    desandrews Posts: 143
    Huh? This makes no sense. The "Fair" Tax introduces embedded taxes. It doesn't remove them. Right now corporate taxes are paid on profits. Effectively, you will now quadruple taxes on a corporation's cost of goods sold. So if a business is high-margin like my own, you basically eliminate my tax burden since my cost of goods sold is largely just untaxed salaries. However, a business whose products are dependent on taxable widgets gets ass-raped by your 20% tax or whatever it is, thereby forcing them to dramatically increase prices. And since the majority of the products purchased by the poor are low-margin items like food and disposable products rather than services, they'll bear the brunt of those price increases.

    A business whose products are dependent on taxable widgets may be better off than the service industries. Imagine the raw product changes hands 4 times as it's crafted into the final widget. Each change of hands results in a tax. By the time it gets to the market, it's got 4 taxes embedded in it. The Fair Tax would remove all of the embedded taxes and slap 23% on at the end. That's the major reason the price of products are projected to decline under this plan.
  • dont you know you can measure someone's intelligence and worth by their income? poor people are stupid, that's why they're poor! that's also why we have to have the government feed them and clothe them, becos they're incapable of doing it themselves.

    Thats True, George Bush makes $400K.

    But here's the cold hard numbers:
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/2002-07-18-degree-dollars.htm
    MSG 9/11/98, Jones Beach 8/24/2000, Saratoga 8/30/2000, Albany 4/29/03, Boston 7/2/03, Philly 7/5/03, MSG 7/9/03, Boston 9/29/04, Montreal 9/15/05, Albany 5/12/06, Hartford 5/13/06, Boston 5/24/06, Boston 5/25/06, Hartford 6/27/08, Boston 6/30/08, EV Boston 8/2/08
  • desandrews
    desandrews Posts: 143
    If you want to put US companies at the ultimate advantage, just stop taxing them altogether. But do that because corporations aren't actually people. They can't vote, they don't have rights. Their votes and their rights extend from the votes and rights of the people who work for them, and those people are already paying taxes - corporate taxation is redundant taxation. Eliminating a corporate tax system makes a hell of a lot more sense than just trying to rig a contrived system in their favor, especially when the unintended consequences of this plan will screw over a lot of businesses.

    I'd be willing to engage in that debate. If a Congressman had a bill to implement this out there and there was a book describing the details etc, I'd be open to that discussion.
  • what is wrong with that? consumption seems to be a helluva good way to base the tax system. you wanna throw your money around on lots of luxury items, fine, you can clearly afford a larger tax burden. you wanna pinch pennies and amass fortunes eating nothing but ramen for decades, more power to you. that seems infinitely better than an arbitrary income tax. it's probably as close to a use tax as we can get.

    What do "luxury items" and "ramen noodles" have to do with taxes? Seriously, between people who want to link taxes to behaviors and people who want to link taxes to wealth and people who want to link taxes to consumption, the perspective on taxes has become so bizzare.

    I certainly agree that this plan is better than an abitrary income tax system. But that's like saying my mom is hotter than my grandma. Trust me, you don't want either one.

    Taxation is inextricably linked to the value of rights and services. We can ignore this fact all we'd like, but we cannot escape it.
  • Pacomc79
    Pacomc79 Posts: 9,404
    http://www.fairtax.org

    How does the FairTax protect low-income and lower-middle-income families and individuals?

    Under the FairTax plan, poor people pay no net FairTax at all up to the poverty level! Every household receives a rebate that is equal to the FairTax paid on essential goods and services, and wage earners are no longer subject to the most regressive and burdensome tax of all, the payroll tax. Those spending at twice the poverty level pay a tax of only 11.5 percent – a rate much lower than the income and payroll tax burden they bear today.

    Under the federal income tax, slow economic growth and recessions have a disproportionately adverse impact on lower-income families. Breadwinners in these families are more likely to lose their jobs, are less likely to have the resources to weather bad economic times, and are more in need of the initial employment opportunities that a dynamic, growing economy provides. Retaining the present tax system makes economic progress needlessly slow, thus harming low-income people the most.

    In contrast, the FairTax dramatically improves economic growth and wage rates for all, but especially for lower-income families and individuals. In addition to receiving the monthly FairTax rebate, these taxpayers are freed from regressive payroll taxes, the federal income tax, and the compliance burdens associated with each. They pay no more business taxes hidden in the price of goods and services, and used goods are tax free.


    Back to FAQ Index



    Is it fair for rich people to get the exact same FairTax rebate from the federal government as the poorest person in America?

    Let’s look at a billionaire under the FairTax – if he spends $10,000,000 dollars he pays a tax of $2,300,000 and gets a rebate of $4,508 (assuming he is married and has no children). His effective tax rate as a percent of spending is 22.95 percent.

    Now, let’s look at a middle-income married couple with no children under the FairTax – if they spend $40,000, they pay $4,692 net of their rebate for an effective tax rate of 11.7 percent. The effective tax rate increases as spending increases, but never exceeds 23 percent!

    Figure 4: Comparison of effective tax rates: FairTax, Income tax

    FairTax Current Tax
    Expenditures = income $40,000 $40,000
    Net tax $4,692 $5,870
    Effective tax rate 11.7% 14.7%

    In contrast, if this same couple earns $40,000 in wages today under the current tax system, they pay $2,810 in income taxes and $3,060 in payroll taxes for a total of $5,870 in taxes (14.7 percent). In addition, their employer pays another $3,060 in payroll taxes. Most economists agree that the employer payroll tax is actually borne by employees in the form of lower wages. Looked at this way, this couple is paying $8,930 (22.3 percent) in taxes today, which doesn’t even include the hidden taxes they pay every time they make a purchase.

    Finally, let’s look at a low-income couple under the FairTax – they pay no net FairTax at all. Today, under the income tax system, they not only pay 15 percent in payroll taxes, but they also pay hidden taxes – arising from corporate taxes, private sector compliance costs, and payroll taxes passed on to consumers and embedded in the price of everything they buy.
    My Girlfriend said to me..."How many guitars do you need?" and I replied...."How many pairs of shoes do you need?" She got really quiet.
  • desandrews wrote:
    I'd be willing to engage in that debate. If a Congressman had a bill to implement this out there and there was a book describing the details etc, I'd be open to that discussion.

    I'm confused. Do you want to debate this, or do you want to wait until I write a book about it and become a Congressman?