The Fair Tax

Pacomc79 wrote:

http://www.fairtax.org

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

Sounds like an unbiased source? Is Grover Norquist involved?

"I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."

desandrews wrote:

NO WAY! Only the final end-user product would be taxed. No business to business taxations.

How do you know what the eventual end user is?

If I buy a car and re-sell it, am I entitled to a refund of my sales tax?

desandrews wrote:

Fair enough. The underlying point is acknowledging there is a tradeoff between "X" and being able "to provide for their families and their future".

I still think you're cutting it across liberal/conservative lines too much though. I don't think "X" is assumed to be for the benefit of families and their future by liberals if "X" is an initiative to develop a new type of bomb.

No argument there - unless it's some sort of non-lethal bomb, or has the ability to read the souls of those it encounters and selectively blows up only the bad guys.

On the flip side, if it were a tax for a new bomb, I doubt you'd hear many conservative complaints anyway.

bill_maloney wrote:

Move to Monaco if you hate paying taxes so much.

It has nothing to do with paying taxes. I don't hate paying taxes, I think there are better ways to pay into said system.

soulsinging wrote:

id probly be ok with that too. i think simplicity is a good thing when it comes to taxes. im not sure i know what you mean about links between values of services? what are you talking about exactly? and how can you base a tax system off of that without making it even more complicated than our current one? it sounds like it would be ripe for subjective judgment calls and tinkering.

Every governmental service has a value. It has a value to the person who provides that service and a person who receives that service. Right now in this country, someone can receive maximum benefit from public services for minimum cost. It's like running a bank wherein virtually no links between deposits and withdrawls exist.

You say that a system involving the concept of value would be ripe for "subjective judgment calls and tinkering". On that count you'd be 100% correct. There is another system of value exchange that is ripe for "subjective judgment calls and tinkering" known as a market. The market is responsible for the exchange of the majority of value in this country, and those values are determined by the individuals involved in exchange.

Again, government services are products with values. They are provided by one person to another and are perfect candidates for traditional systems of exchange. That's why I've always supported "taxation" systems wherein citizens simply buy and exchange services. Except it's no longer taxation at that point since a) you're allowed to asses the value of government services on your own and b) you're allowed to completely opt out of the system if you see no value there or a bad value proposition there. Obviously the current government could not be supported on such a system because, surprise surprise, the government doesn't actually produce $1,000,000,000,000 in value to the citizenry. They'd simply not pay for the vast majority of the services because the value proposition is incredibly weak. That's why you have to force them to pay.

im pretty sure this is going to become another of our epic debates between your stringent ideological views and my attempt to elucidate practical and workable systems.

First, it can't really be "epic" since I have some visitors coming into town tonight and won't be back on the board until next week

Secondly, you do understand that "practical and workable systems" require a stringent ideological view, right? There's nothing practical or workable about "sometimes 1+1=2 and sometimes 1+1=3".

the purpose of taxation is to provide funding for necessary public services (what that encompasses is a whole other debate) by securing contributions from its citizens. in a class conscious society such as ours, we recognize that capitalism blesses some more than others. i dont believe in wealth distribution per se, but i do believe that funding for public services provided to all should be derived from each with respect to their ability to bear that burden. thus, roads or public transit available to all are paid for by all, according to their ability to contribute.

thus, as i said, a consumer based tax is rather fair... those able to splurge on luxury items are more able to bear higher tax burdens, given that they can afford to buy a lexus without worrying where their next meal is coming from. those able to purchase little more than living expenses do not have to bear heavy tax burdens. everyone gets their equal cost of living rebate and can use it accordingly. an income based tax still means that someone being taxed 15% of poverty wages is going to barely keep themselves afloat, even IF they spend no more than living expenses. though the contribution percentage is equivalent to a welathy person's, the burden of paying even a much smaller tax amount is much higher. on the flip side, a wealthy person can keep nearly all of their wealth if they like, by living a modest lifestyle. it leaves people to somewhat decide their own tax burden through their lifestyle, but also secures funding from everyone according to their ability to provide it. no, it isn't perfect, but it seems better than tying it to simple income.

What you're saying here actually plays into what I say above. Consumption taxes are motivated by a single key assumption about the value of government services:

Rich people have more to lose in the absence of government than poor people and therefore achieve a higher value from its services

This assumption is not a terrible one, particularly in the context of a government wherein the equal protection of rights is held paramount. But that's no longer the hallmark of a society that spends the majority of its tax dollars on means-tested services to the poor.