NationStates Jolt Archive

We've really diverged off of the John McCain -- AMT topic, but I don't think y'all know it. We've been doing the same dance for a few pages and it's time to hear some new music.

Basically, the FairTax -- HR25 -- is a revenue neutral replacement for the income tax, SSI tax, Medicare tax, and several taxes. The FairTax is a retail sales tax on new goods and services of about 23%. A central element is a variable pre-bate that is distributed monthly. The pre-bate is based solely on family size and is designed to offset the expenses for the necessities of life. There is quite a bit more information published at the web site, FairTax.org.

This is the best scheme that ever could be devised to provide revenue to a government. Find a flaw that goes beyond envy of the rich. I dare you.

We'll be lucky as hell if this bill passes. I hope they repeal the 16th Amendment sometime in the near future so the FairTax can be implemented permanently.

Find a flaw that goes beyond envy of the rich. I dare you.
I see your flaw...
The definition of "items purchased for investment" is so broad that a number of items bought by the richest of the rich can be exempted from the tax, especially stock.

And raise you another...
"Expenses for the necessities of life" are not defined. I have to buy food, clothes, and pay for water and electricity to survive. If it isn't defined, the government will weasel out of paying for it. Not only that, but at what defined rate is the cost of the "expenses for the necessities of life" placed at? Cost of living not only varies from state to state but from area to area within said state. According to this (http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_faq_answers), expenditures for a family living in Alaska are higher than that of Hawaii. Seems a tad odd to me. The government has insofar proven they have no idea what the cost of life is anywhere and are loathe to increase pay outs to match it, yet the thing that really makes the FairTax "fair" is that it offers these prebates which are wholly based around the government properly figuring out what the undefined "expenses for the necessities of life" cost?

Although I disapprove of the "pre-bate," I agree with the general concept.

This is the best scheme that ever could be devised to provide revenue to a government.

wow, that's just delusional

Find a flaw that goes beyond envy of the rich. I dare you.

it isn't actually fair

Although I disapprove of the "pre-bate," I agree with the general concept.
The general concept is brilliant, and the concept of application is just as brilliantly flawed.

My only problem is revenue neutrality. There is no evidence to suggest either way what would happen to the budget. Economists don't have a consensus as to what rate the tax should be in order to achieve revenue neutrality.

So you have only two tax brackets... and one of them covers all non-necessities expenses?

Yeah, I don't know if I like that idea of "fairness."

I see your flaw...
The definition of "items purchased for investment" is so broad that a number of items bought by the richest of the rich can be exempted from the tax, especially stock.

Far from being a flaw, this is a benefit. Tax free purchases of stocks are only going to increase the savings and investments of many that are not "super-rich". And let's say that someone could purchase a yacht tax free as an investment. Doesn't someone have to build that yacht? Don't they get paid wages? Don't more yacht purchases mean more work?

And raise you another...
"Expenses for the necessities of life" are not defined. I have to buy food, clothes, and pay for water and electricity to survive. If it isn't defined, the government will weasel out of paying for it. Not only that, but at what defined rate is the cost of the "expenses for the necessities of life" placed at? Cost of living not only varies from state to state but from area to area within said state. According to this (http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_faq_answers), expenditures for a family living in Alaska are higher than that of Hawaii. Seems a tad odd to me. The government has insofar proven they have no idea what the cost of life is anywhere and are loathe to increase pay outs to match it, yet the thing that really makes the FairTax "fair" is that it offers these prebates which are wholly based around the government properly figuring out what the undefined "expenses for the necessities of life" cost?
Is this a reason not to adopt the plan?
Incidentally, it isn't an arbitrary number...From the FAQ "...The size of the rebate is determined by the Department of Health & Human Services’ poverty level guideline multiplied by the tax rate. This is a well-accepted, long-used poverty-level calculation that includes food, clothing, shelter, transportation, medical care, etc."

And let's say that someone could purchase a yacht tax free as an investment. Doesn't someone have to build that yacht? Don't they get paid wages? Don't more yacht purchases mean more work?

Therefore, we should abolish all taxes.

Far from being a flaw, this is a benefit. Tax free purchases of stocks are only going to increase the savings and investments of many that are not "super-rich". And let's say that someone could purchase a yacht tax free as an investment. Doesn't someone have to build that yacht? Don't they get paid wages? Don't more yacht purchases mean more work?

So the rich get richer on the backs of laborers.

Tax free purchases of stocks are only going to increase the savings and investments of many that are not "super-rich".

they will disproportionately benefit the rich and powerful with more riches and power. the skew is bad enough already, this will make it exponentially worse.

So the rich get richer on the backs of laborers.

And the laborers get richer due to the generosity of their employers. Everybody wins.

the skew is bad enough already, this will make it exponentially worse.

The magnitude of the "skew," as you call, is indicative of the health of our economic system. The greater it is, the more power the wealthy and successful wield. Consequently, more money is controlled by those who know how to properly invest it; thus, our economic growth willaccelerate as long as increasing amounts of money are concentrated in the hands of the rich and knowledgable.

I don't think increased inequality is, by definition, a bad thing. Some differ from me on that, but, if the quality of life of all classes is improved by this, it would seem to be a good idea.

Therefore, we should abolish all taxes.

Indeed, for that is the only fair tax. Unfortunately, this would be nearly impossible.

And the laborers get richer due to the generosity of their employers. Everybody wins.

Oh, the generosity of the employers.

Right.

May I borrow what you are snorting? Because there is nothing that you could smoke that could make anyone that delusional.

Far from being a flaw, this is a benefit.
Wrong.

Tax free purchases of stocks are only going to increase the savings and investments of many that are not "super-rich".
Irrelevant. If they charged a penny on every dollar of stock transaction, they could make a decent amount of money without truly inconveniencing the person with the stock.

And let's say that someone could purchase a yacht tax free as an investment. Doesn't someone have to build that yacht? Don't they get paid wages? Don't more yacht purchases mean more work?
Then why tax anything at all? If your reason for not taxing something is "because it provides labor," why the fuck should any good be taxed? They all create labor.

Is this a reason not to adopt the plan?
Yes.

Incidentally, it isn't an arbitrary number...From the FAQ "...The size of the rebate is determined by the Department of Health & Human Services’ poverty level guideline multiplied by the tax rate. This is a well-accepted, long-used poverty-level calculation that includes food, clothing, shelter, transportation, medical care, etc."
Thank you, I was just about to discuss this.

Problem I just discovered with the "fair" rebate. It is decided based on the contiguous 48 states. All of them. There is no individual calculation based on the cost of living from one state to another, much less one area within that state to another. Even us in Alabama with a 5 person household with both parents earning enough income to currently live comfortably, $591 a month for expenses of food, medical, clothing, and shelter falls short. I don't even want to know how useless it would be somewhere like Seattle.

And what's more is that this rebate calculation gives more money to a two parent household than a single parent one. Under the standard conditions, a two parent household would be bringing in more money and therefore would need less government support. The system of the rebates is too general and stingy to be of any use or to even be touted as one of the best parts of the FairTax plan.

Oh, the generosity of the employers.

If you do not feel you are being paid an adequate wage, you are not legally bound to serve in perpetuity; you may quit whenever you please. Refusal to do so implies that you accept the benefit being bestowed upon you by your employer.

If you do not feel you are being paid an adequate wage, you are not legally bound to serve in perpetuity; you may quit whenever you please. Refusal to do so implies that you accept the benefit being bestowed upon you by your employer.

Some people don't exactly enjoy the luxury of job mobility. Particularily lower income workers. Yes, they can find new jobs. But many times, it is impossible to relocate to areas with the halfway decent jobs. As such, many people are forced to take low paying jobs with no opportunity for advancement as a means of survival.

Some people don't exactly enjoy the luxury of job mobility. Particularily lower income workers. Yes, they can find new jobs. But many times, it is impossible to relocate to areas with the halfway decent jobs. As such, many people are forced to take low paying jobs with no opportunity for advancement as a means of survival.

So, to paraphrase, those who employ such people are doing them a favor. Thank you very much and have a great day.

And what's more is that this rebate calculation gives more money to a two parent household than a single parent one. Under the standard conditions, a two parent household would be bringing in more money and therefore would need less government support. The system of the rebates is too general and stingy to be of any use or to even be touted as one of the best parts of the FairTax plan.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7a/FTRebate.png

That makes absolutely no sense. A single mother with a child gets a smaller prebate than a couple without children. A child cannot work, unless you plan to reintroduce child labor.

Why is there a difference? The plan does not take into account employment or income.

So, to paraphrase, those who employ such people are doing them a favor. Thank you very much and have a great day.

They don't deserve a job to earn money. They don't deserve help from the government. They don't deserve a thing.

Except the right to live a shitty life?

"Well, now that you aren't a fetus and can live on your own, fuck you!"

This is being proposed by a Republican, right?

And it's call the FAIR Tax?

That's all the evidence you need to KNOW that it will be the most UNfair tax ever imposed.:headbang:

Plus the fact that all flat taxes/sales taxes are regressive, and we're supposed to trust a government that can't set a fair minimum wage and gives people $25 worth of food stamps per week to live on to set a fair amount for these idiotic "prebates" that will be pegged accurately to inflation and not taxed to death? Really?

And the final, baffling thing: FAG trumpets that consumption is the greatest, most wonderful thing ever, and that the rich are really helping out us regular joes by buying things (really very charitable of them), WHILE EXHORTING A SYSTEM THAT WILL INHIBIT CONSUMPTION.

I can't believe you don't shut up.:rolleyes:

I'm all for it, since if it ever passes, I'll buy almost exclusively in second-hand merchandise, thus paying far fewer in taxes than I do currently.

...AND I get a check from Uncle Sam every month on top of that. What's not to like? :D

I support the Fair Tax Plan, and I hope HR 25 passes. :)

So, to paraphrase, those who employ such people are doing them a favor. Thank you very much and have a great day.

Ah. So when somebody creates a legitimate argument against your point, you decide to ignore it, and troll about.

To paraphrase our conversation:

You: "People can just get better jobs if they don't get payed enough!"
Me: "Not everybody has job mobility, and are stuck in low paying, dead end jobs. Thus, they can't get payed more."
You: "I win!"
Me: "What. The. Hell?"

Just for those following this particular game.

You: "People can just get better jobs if they don't get payed enough!"

I never claimed that; I simply claimed that they had the capacity to quit should they feel that their employer was not doing them a favor.

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

Ah. So when somebody creates a legitimate argument against your point, you decide to ignore it, and troll about.

To paraphrase our conversation:

You: "People can just get better jobs if they don't get payed enough!"
Me: "Not everybody has job mobility, and are stuck in low paying, dead end jobs. Thus, they can't get payed more."
You: "I win!"
Me: "What. The. Hell?"

Just for those following this particular game.


Nobody is "stuck" in a job...they put up with it, or they don't

That doesn't mean that there are any better jobs out there, but then, everyone's definition of a "better job" is different. Some people are pickier about wages, benefits, and job conditions than others...those who are too picky can't really complain about being in a "dead end" job if they aren't willing to emulate those around them and actually do something about it.

EDIT: I actually just defended FAG...

...anyone have a hose? :p

Nobody is "stuck" in a job...they put up with it, or they don't
Sure, they can do that... if they don't feel like eating.

You seem to believe that society exists for the benefit of the few, and not the many.

Unregulated capitalism eventually collapses inward upon itself by destroying the ability of the population to consume the products they create, due to unlimited exploitation of labor by capital. Then everybody loses.

So, does society "owe" me a decent living? Yes. Because if I am unable to obtain a decent living playing by the rules, I will play outside the rules. Multiply that outcome and the selfish, short-sighted society gets torn asunder. And good riddance to it.

And the laborers get richer due to the generosity of their employers. Everybody wins.

http://img32.picoodle.com/img/img32/9/7/26/f_everybodym_ca5809c.jpg

I never claimed that; I simply claimed that they had the capacity to quit should they feel that their employer was not doing them a favor.They could also jump of a bridge or in front of a train. But it may not be realistic options. Employers don't in general do people favours, they try to get the most out of their exchange of pay for labour. And if you're hard-pressed for money your negotiating position in this market is severely compromised. They won't be doing you a favour, and you have no choice but to accept or starve and live on the street.

I never claimed that; I simply claimed that they had the capacity to quit should they feel that their employer was not doing them a favor.

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

Ah.

Sorry, somehow "quitting" isn't an option. If you think it really is, that's just asinine.

It's basically like saying:

"If you aren't satisfied with your shitty job, you can always live in a box. Or die."

Unregulated capitalism eventually collapses inward upon itself by destroying the ability of the population to consume the products they create, due to unlimited exploitation of labor by capital. Then everybody loses.

False. In most capitalist nations, real wages are constantly increasing; that is, the population's potential to consume is steadily increasing.

False. In most capitalist nations, real wages are constantly increasing; that is, the population's potential to consume is steadily increasing.
Those wouldn't happen to be the nations with regulations on industry would they?
:rolleyes:

OK, to be clear. The McCain thread is about the FairTax, this thread is about rampant capitalism.

They won't be doing you a favour, and you have no choice but to accept or starve and live on the street.

They are, by definition, doing you a favor if you choose to work for them. They are presenting you with an option (employment) which is superior to all other possible paths of action you can take.

They are, by definition, doing you a favor

Only because of pre-existing radically skewed property distribution.

They are, by definition, doing you a favor if you choose to work for them. They are presenting you with an option (employment) which is superior to all other possible paths of action you can take.

So instead of drowning in the cesspool, you merely wading in it.

Yay!

I'm going to get my swim trunks.

They are, by definition, doing you a favor if you choose to work for them. They are presenting you with an option (employment) which is superior to all other possible paths of action you can take.

And we are all doing THEM a favor by agreeing to peacefully support a social structure in which they are rich employers and we are not. Below a certain level of pay, tearing them limb from limb and distributing their wealth amongst the workers makes more sense than peaceful employment.

The scope of your argument is too narrow, which is why you keep not making any sense. You assume that economics only applies to the dollars and cents.

They are, by definition, doing you a favor if you choose to work for them. They are presenting you with an option (employment) which is superior to all other possible paths of action you can take.

Below a certain pay level, killing them and taking their wealth is a more attractive option.

They are, by definition, doing you a favor if you choose to work for them. They are presenting you with an option (employment) which is superior to all other possible paths of action you can take.You have a weird sense of "favour".
It's an exchange, and not necessarily a fair one. I'm doing them a much bigger 'favour' then they're doing me.

Just because the alternate is worse does not make employment a favour. It would be a favour if they give me more than a fair compensation for what I give in return.

23% Federal Sales Tax plus 5-7% Sales Tax in the average state, you're running close to or at 30%, which is the current total tax burden for darn near everybody from janitors to neurologists. Throw in the state property taxes (both real and personal) and state and local income taxes and you bust out above the current tax burden on the average American by say 5-10%. And you're really screwed if you happen to own real property in Texas. This is a crazy idea for a net tax increase.

The "pre-bate" based on "necessities of life" is close to a government rationing system, unconscionable if one supports less governmental interference in the daily economic lives of individuals.

Besides that, considering that most Americans average out to paying 30% of their income in taxes regardless of how high or low that income may be, how is the current system "unfair" if one's definition of a fair tax is basically a flat tax?

You have a weird sense of "favour".

They are improving your life. I consider that a favor. If you don't feel that they are improving your life, you don't need to work for them.

Only because of pre-existing radically skewed property distribution.

but, you see, that radical skew just means that everybody wins and everything is awesome

This is the best scheme that ever could be devised to provide revenue to a government. Find a flaw that goes beyond envy of the rich. I dare you.

Any "sales tax" is a tax that weighs heavier the less money someone makes. The reason for this is simple. The less one makes the bigger percent one has to spend to survive and have a few of the "luxuries" of life. The people at the bottom spend 100% of their income so would be taxed on everything. A Bill Gates or Warren Buffet probably don't spend 10% of their income. Granted that 10% is greater than the 100% of the people at the bottom, but it leaves 90% tax free.

From the founding of the US until 1980 taxes were collected on "excess". That is money over and above living expenses. At the founding of the country that meant imported goods that weren't needs for the common worker. In the 50's and 60's when the economy was really good in meant a graduated income tax. The graduation recognized that it took more for a rich man to live than a poor man, but also recognized that the rich had greater "excess" income. Starting in 1980 we have moved to a flat tax that imposes the greater burden on the middle and a lesser burden on the top. The economy has not been really good for 26 years. Most on this forum have grown up not knowing what a good economy looks like.

They are improving your life.

Yes, and if someone saves you from drowning in a river--at an exorbitant price--he or she is also improving your life.

Does that mean that we should have a society where people routinely must be saved from drowning in rivers?

This is the best scheme that ever could be devised to provide revenue to a government. Find a flaw that goes beyond envy of the rich. I dare you.As we've discussed before, the FairTax, like nearly all sales taxes, is regressive.

And the laborers get richer due to the generosity of their employers. Everybody wins.

This is the best sarcastic remark I've ever seen. It now holds a place in my sig

OP

FairTax is a sham. This is a regressive tax which may ultimately still be combined with the income taxes it was intended to replace, as it will take a constitutional amendment to overturn the 16th amendment. Other posters have already elaborated other arguments as to why it is bad, so there is no need to repeat what has been said.

Just for everyone's reference, here is a fairly comprehensive list of arguments published by (strangely enough) a guns rights group, against the FairTax: http://www.jpfo.org/fairtax.htm

If you are really determined to see genuine tax reform, I contend that the APT tax (http://www.apttax.com/) is a better deal overall.

I support the Fair Tax Plan, and I hope HR 25 passes. :)

As a Ron Paul supporter, don't you find it interesting that the self-proclaimed advocate of freedom and low-taxes did not pounce on the opportunity to be a co-sponsor of this piece of legislation? I suggest that you reevaluate your opinion of the FairTax plan.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR00025:@@@P

Just for everyone's reference, here is a fairly comprehensive list of arguments published by (strangely enough) a guns rights group, against the FairTax: http://www.jpfo.org/fairtax.htm
That is a decent rebuttal... until half-way through where they go into their crazy gunnut conspiracy theory world.

That is a decent rebuttal... until half-way through where they go into their crazy gunnut conspiracy theory world.

mark of the beast!!!!!

23% Federal Sales Tax plus 5-7% Sales Tax in the average state, you're running close to or at 30%, which is the current total tax burden for darn near everybody from janitors to neurologists. Throw in the state property taxes (both real and personal) and state and local income taxes and you bust out above the current tax burden on the average American by say 5-10%. And you're really screwed if you happen to own real property in Texas. This is a crazy idea for a net tax increase.

The "pre-bate" based on "necessities of life" is close to a government rationing system, unconscionable if one supports less governmental interference in the daily economic lives of individuals.

Besides that, considering that most Americans average out to paying 30% of their income in taxes regardless of how high or low that income may be, how is the current system "unfair" if one's definition of a fair tax is basically a flat tax?

About 12 years ago or so, Dick Armey proposed a flat tax. His proposal was that all deductions would be eliminated. Wage earners would pay a flat 10% federal tax and corporations would also. He also proposed that states enact a flat 5% tax.

Of course, this proposal went nowhere real fast. After all, how can congress control us, if there is no tax code to tinker with year after year? Just remember, that all the senators that scream that the rich need to pay their share of the tax are all multi millionaires. Without a flat tax or a fair tax, they will just keep making sure that the rich "do pay" their taxes.

The black market is already huge - an absurdly high sales tax would simply put massive pressure on transactions to drive them into the black market.

The one good effect would be to discourage consumption to increase the savings rate, which should bring down the current accounts deficit.


To put a stop the the bickering about employer/employee - who is doing a favor for whom: neither is doing the other the favor. Both parties are agreeing to a mutually beneficial arrangement. No favors being done.

To the poster who stated the economy hasnt been good for 26 years - I truly hope that was sarcastic. Originally was going to give you the benefit of the doubt and look what country you might be talking about, but since youre an American, no. 1981 was hardly a shining beacon of a robust economy, and since then we have had a couple of great cycles which saw massive increases in the standard of living for the average american.

That is a decent rebuttal... until half-way through where they go into their crazy gunnut conspiracy theory world.

All the same, it still shows the FairTax for what it really is.

All the same, it still shows the FairTax for what it really is.
It would be better if they wern't gun nut conspiracy theorists, if you read more than half-way through you can start blowing it off because it gets absurd.

It would be better if they wern't gun nut conspiracy theorists, if you read more than half-way through you can start blowing it off because it gets absurd.

Ok, how about a rebuttal from a libertarian think thank? It has most of the arguments from the former link, minus the gun stuff, plus emphasis on freedom, reducing government, etc., and it was written by an economics professor at a junior college.
http://www.mises.org/story/1814

Does that mean that we should have a society where people routinely must be saved from drowning in rivers?

Yes. That way, the people who are smart enough not to jump in the river if unable to swim will prosper while those who lack this crucial insight will fare less well.

About 12 years ago or so, Dick Armey proposed a flat tax. His proposal was that all deductions would be eliminated. Wage earners would pay a flat 10% federal tax and corporations would also. He also proposed that states enact a flat 5% tax.


How are you going to handle small business. Most small business don't clear 5%. If you take away the deductions for business expense they all go broke. BUT what is a business expense? That is where the lobbyists have a good time.

Problem I just discovered with the "fair" rebate. It is decided based on the contiguous 48 states. All of them. There is no individual calculation based on the cost of living from one state to another, much less one area within that state to another. Even us in Alabama with a 5 person household with both parents earning enough income to currently live comfortably, $591 a month for expenses of food, medical, clothing, and shelter falls short. I don't even want to know how useless it would be somewhere like Seattle.

And what's more is that this rebate calculation gives more money to a two parent household than a single parent one. Under the standard conditions, a two parent household would be bringing in more money and therefore would need less government support. The system of the rebates is too general and stingy to be of any use or to even be touted as one of the best parts of the FairTax plan.
Damn, you're dense. $600 per month is the offset for the 23% sales tax. That's tax on $2600 of new goods and services. My family of five can live very nicely on $2600 of groceries, gasoline, etc, every month.

Simplification is another goal of the FairTax. It's much easier to calculate and distribute a rebate based on family size than it is to make it depend on locale, family size, inches of rain per year, color of your eyes...

And, wouldn't it be nice if both parents didn't NEED to work? My wife works because she wants to, but out children are grown and gone. Her income offsets the taxes on both of our incomes, plus a little. I'd think that relieving the burden that taxes places on a family would be a good thing.

Some people don't exactly enjoy the luxury of job mobility. Particularily lower income workers. Yes, they can find new jobs. But many times, it is impossible to relocate to areas with the halfway decent jobs. As such, many people are forced to take low paying jobs with no opportunity for advancement as a means of survival.
There's another thing that the FairTax would bring to the U.S. -- Jobs. Lots of jobs. The lack of any corporate income tax would make the United States the tax haven of the world. I don't think that anyone that really wanted to work would have a hard time finding a first, second, or alternate job.

There's another thing that the FairTax would bring to the U.S. -- Jobs. Lots of jobs. The lack of any corporate income tax would make the United States the tax haven of the world.
Hahahahahaha. Sure it would, then all the businesses would learn of the massive financial burden that the non-government funded healthcare system puts on them and move their asses back to Bermuda.

I don't think that anyone that really wanted to work would have a hard time finding a first, second, or alternate job.
Yeah because if the did have that problem they wouldn't be able to afford the massive cost of standard goods required by middle and low income families.

Any "sales tax" is a tax that weighs heavier the less money someone makes. The reason for this is simple. The less one makes the bigger percent one has to spend to survive and have a few of the "luxuries" of life. The people at the bottom spend 100% of their income so would be taxed on everything. A Bill Gates or Warren Buffet probably don't spend 10% of their income. Granted that 10% is greater than the 100% of the people at the bottom, but it leaves 90% tax free.

From the founding of the US until 1980 taxes were collected on "excess". That is money over and above living expenses. At the founding of the country that meant imported goods that weren't needs for the common worker. In the 50's and 60's when the economy was really good in meant a graduated income tax. The graduation recognized that it took more for a rich man to live than a poor man, but also recognized that the rich had greater "excess" income. Starting in 1980 we have moved to a flat tax that imposes the greater burden on the middle and a lesser burden on the top. The economy has not been really good for 26 years. Most on this forum have grown up not knowing what a good economy looks like.

Wonderful recitation of a bad economic lesson. You obviously didn't care to read the explanation at the FairTax website. Try again.

You obviously didn't care to read the explanation at the FairTax website.
Him: "There is no way Alice could have fit down a rabbit hole and fell hundreds of meters and survived."
You: "Obviously you need to go read Alice in Wonderland again."

You can read fantasy all day, but at the end of the day it is still fantasy.

That is a decent rebuttal... until half-way through where they go into their crazy gunnut conspiracy theory world.

Nah, they've missed the point, completely. Tell me what you think their good points are and I'll tell why they're wrong.

Nah, they've missed the point, completely. Tell me what you think their good points are and I'll tell why they're wrong.

Everything up to, and bits and pieces beyond, the halfway point.

So why don't you go ahead and provide your overly optimistic and unrealistic rebuttals to all the points.


Ooh, ooh, I know. You can start by rebutting my points that I made in this thread.

Everything up to, and bits and pieces beyond, the halfway point.

So why don't you go ahead and provide your overly optimistic and unrealistic rebuttals to all the points.


Ooh, ooh, I know. You can start by rebutting my points that I made in this thread.

Already did. I can't help it if you're not satisfied. Didn't see a solitary reply that had any merit.

From the founding of the US until 1980 taxes were collected on "excess". That is money over and above living expenses. At the founding of the country that meant imported goods that weren't needs for the common worker. In the 50's and 60's when the economy was really good in meant a graduated income tax. The graduation recognized that it took more for a rich man to live than a poor man, but also recognized that the rich had greater "excess" income. Starting in 1980 we have moved to a flat tax that imposes the greater burden on the middle and a lesser burden on the top. The economy has not been really good for 26 years. Most on this forum have grown up not knowing what a good economy looks like.

We don't have a flat tax. Judging by your use of the term, I'm not sure if you know what it means. The highest tax bracket is 3.5 times the lowest one - 35% to 10%. On another note, the top 10% pay about 50% of all federal taxes.

We don't have a flat tax. Judging by your use of the term, I'm not sure if you know what it means. The highest tax bracket is 3.5 times the lowest one - 35% to 10%. On another note, the top 10% pay about 50% of all federal taxes.
The problem that most, if not all, of these proponents of wealth distribution have is that they believe having wealth is bad. I don't know how to overcome that, except by example. The United States is what it is -- the most successful nation on Earth -- because, by and large, we let the wealthy keep their property.

Replacing the income tax, and others, with the FairTax only solidifies the position that all citizens are entitled to their earnings.

The problem that most, if not all, of these proponents of wealth distribution have is that they believe having wealth is bad.

not wealth per se, just grossly unjust distributions of it and the resultant social problems and injustices. have you really gotten this far and not understood that point yet?

We don't have a flat tax. Judging by your use of the term, I'm not sure if you know what it means. The highest tax bracket is 3.5 times the lowest one - 35% to 10%. On another note, the top 10% pay about 50% of all federal taxes.

The United States Federal Income Tax is as flat as a pancake. The bottom bracket pay no federal income tax on the sliding scale, but they pay FICA that totals out to just over 18%. The richest Americans earn very little of the total proportion of their income in wages and often escape FICA altogether through Schedule B and Sch. D income. Since the highest rate on capital gains is now 15%, the richest Americans are paying 15% income tax and the poorest 18%. Factor in all other types of taxes and it runs between about 30-35%. There is no real "bump" in the total income tax rates, including FICA and self-employment taxes, to flatten.

Tax reform would be eliminating separate FICA contributions because they are completely fungible for the purposes of the federal budget, serving only to soak the poor who work (which is actually the vast majority of them).

As for the rationale for progressive taxation being "envy" of the rich: Well, there's a tax on whiskey, does that mean we envy alcoholics?

Although I disapprove of the "pre-bate," I agree with the general concept.

Are you fu...oh wait you're a troll...

This is the best scheme that ever could be devised to provide revenue to a government. Find a flaw that goes beyond envy of the rich. I dare you.

Not everyone can afford to devote 23% of their income to taxes. I know my family can't. Not everyone in this world have the same level of disposable income, and so taxing everyone at the same rate is eminently unfair. A wealthy person can afford to pay a far greater percentage of his income than a poor person can. In the bottom 40% of the income bracket, nearly all of a person's income is devoted towards meeting the material needs of life. Not everyone needs to spend the same amount on these means of life, and a prebate would be a meaningless gesture to the poor of this country.

Yeah I read up to FAQ 3 and the rebates are hardly enough to cover expenses for the poor.

Already did. I can't help it if you're not satisfied. Didn't see a solitary reply that had any merit.
No you didn't.

You addressed a single one of my points in a shitty way.

Address:
1) If the method for deciding that something shouldn't be taxed is that "buying it will create labor in order to produce it," then why should any good be taxed?

2) Why does a two person household get more monthly allowance than a single person household with the same number of children?

3) Why does the "fair tax" prebate not scale to area cost of living? The cost of living in Seattle is nowhere near as low as probably anywhere in Alabama.

The problem that most, if not all, of these proponents of wealth distribution have is that they believe having wealth is bad. I don't know how to overcome that, except by example. The United States is what it is -- the most successful nation on Earth -- because, by and large, we let the wealthy keep their property.
Your group likes to assert wealth distribution == Robin Hood. It isn't. Everyone contributes, everyone benefits. The fact exists that the richest can contribute more with less damage to their usable income.

Replacing the income tax, and others, with the FairTax only solidifies the position that all citizens are entitled to their earnings.
I'm sure all the richest of the rich are gung-ho for the FairTax where they pay no taxes on stocks or their hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars in income and then they can have their tax people say their largest purchases are "investments" and get out of paying any taxes at all while the poorest people are stuck with the tax burden.

Why do all you "people are entitled to their earnings" people support placing the tax burden on the shoulders of the people with little or no disposable income?

How about a system of fees and fines instead of taxes? That way those who use the services provided and those that harm society in some way are made to pay for government. Seems right to me, your punishment for breaking the law (a real crime like theft or murder not failing to buckle up) would include paying back the damage you did and if you want a government service you would have to pay the government for it like you would a private entity.

Why do all you "people are entitled to their earnings" people support placing the tax burden on the shoulders of the people with little or no disposable income?

I have my theories.

Mostly to do with those who have never actually experienced said conditions.

I have my theories.

Mostly to do with those who have never actually experienced said conditions.

Also because Republicans vehemently support (and are paid by) big businesses. 'Nuff said.

We don't have a flat tax. Judging by your use of the term, I'm not sure if you know what it means. The highest tax bracket is 3.5 times the lowest one - 35% to 10%. On another note, the top 10% pay about 50% of all federal taxes.

Ok, a virtual flat tax. Warren Buffet has said many times that his secretary is in the same bracket he is. Come to think of it, I'm in the same 35% as Warren Buffet. When we had a graduated tax it ranged from 10%-90%. No one paid 90% of their income it was 90% of the income over a certain level. At that time, (50s-80s) we had a true booming economy. We rebuilt Europe, we built the interstate hiway, we put men on the moon, we started the space shuttle. Since 1980 we.......ah......well.....we have kept part of the interstate in repair, we keep flying the antiquated shuttles.

Look at the history of the country. In the good times and in the founding, only the rich paid taxes. Wealth doesn't tinkle down from the top, it grows from the roots at the bottom.

This tax is very bad for the environment, as I have to buy yet more paper to put it on my "reasons I'm utterly, completely, incontrovertibly glad I live in Canada" list.

Ok, a virtual flat tax. Warren Buffet has said many times that his secretary is in the same bracket he is. Come to think of it, I'm in the same 35% as Warren Buffet. When we had a graduated tax it ranged from 10%-90%. No one paid 90% of their income it was 90% of the income over a certain level. At that time, (50s-80s) we had a true booming economy. We rebuilt Europe, we built the interstate hiway, we put men on the moon, we started the space shuttle. Since 1980 we.......ah......well.....we have kept part of the interstate in repair, we keep flying the antiquated shuttles.

Look at the history of the country. In the good times and in the founding, only the rich paid taxes. Wealth doesn't tinkle down from the top, it grows from the roots at the bottom.

Is stagflation and the shitty economy of the 70's all just a myth? According to you it sure seems like it. The 80s - thanks to Reagan and Volcker - were far better in economic terms than the preceeding decade. I don't think you could come up with a single statistic that proves otherwise, really. The boom of the 50s and into the 60s was due to constantly high demand due to war-related activities : reconstruction in Europe, the Korean War, and to a lesser extent Vietnam, not high taxes.

All these threads started by FAG are just a waste of time.

He basically says something like "The Republicans have just realized that the sky is red, and now they're going to pass legislation to make Red the Official Sky Color of the United States. How wonderful is that!?"

And then other posters patiently explain the scientific reason why the sky is incontrovertibly blue, while FAG and Myr occasionally pop in to add comments like "But the Republicans say it's RED! So suck it!" or "Oh, you'd LIKE the sky to be blue, wouldn't you, you commie liberal windbag!"

Sigh. I'm not sure why we bother. :headbang:

No you didn't.

You addressed a single one of my points in a shitty way.

Address:
1) If the method for deciding that something shouldn't be taxed is that "buying it will create labor in order to produce it," then why should any good be taxed?

2) Why does a two person household get more monthly allowance than a single person household with the same number of children?

3) Why does the "fair tax" prebate not scale to area cost of living? The cost of living in Seattle is nowhere near as low as probably anywhere in Alabama.
Since you're the only one that's posed an argument that's more involved than "well, rich people will still have more money", or "Oh my, it's REGRESSIVE". I'll humor you by repeating and elaborating on the rebuttals that I've already made for these points. But it's going to have to wait 'til lunch. I need to turn the cranks of the capitalist economy...

All these threads started by FAG are just a waste of time.

He basically says something like "The Republicans have just realized that the sky is red, and now they're going to pass legislation to make Red the Official Sky Color of the United States. How wonderful is that!?"

And then other posters patiently explain the scientific reason why the sky is incontrovertibly blue, while FAG and Myr occasionally pop in to add comments like "But the Republicans say it's RED! So suck it!" or "Oh, you'd LIKE the sky to be blue, wouldn't you, you commie liberal windbag!"

Sigh. I'm not sure why we bother. :headbang:

It wasn't started by him. :confused:

I'll humor you by repeating and elaborating on the rebuttals that I've already made for these points. But it's going to have to wait 'til lunch. I need to turn the cranks of the capitalist economy...
You have neither made a point nor rebuttal that addresses anything I just listed. If you intend to "repeat" what you have already done, you will be wasting everyone's time.

I support the Fair Tax Plan, and I hope HR 25 passes. :)
And now that I see this among the muck of FnG, I demand you explain your position.

Though I doubt it will matter, if Myrmidonisia is any indication, anyone in support of the 'FairTax' is totally enamored and entranced by the thought of "no" income tax and "no more" IRS.

Since you're the only one that's posed an argument that's more involved than "well, rich people will still have more money", or "Oh my, it's REGRESSIVE". I'll humor you by repeating and elaborating on the rebuttals that I've already made for these points. But it's going to have to wait 'til lunch. I need to turn the cranks of the capitalist economy...You asked if I thought it was fair. I said that it wasn't, it was regressive. The prebate doesn't change this.

I thought Myrmidonisia was going to come explain how the FairTax is fair in light of my point.


Also, where is Wilgrove, I saw him say he supports it. Let's hear the reason.

All these threads started by FAG are just a waste of time.

He basically says something like "The Republicans have just realized that the sky is red, and now they're going to pass legislation to make Red the Official Sky Color of the United States. How wonderful is that!?"

And then other posters patiently explain the scientific reason why the sky is incontrovertibly blue, while FAG and Myr occasionally pop in to add comments like "But the Republicans say it's RED! So suck it!" or "Oh, you'd LIKE the sky to be blue, wouldn't you, you commie liberal windbag!"

Even though, in fact, we'd choose the sky to be dark purple if we had the choice.

and if you want a government service you would have to pay the government for it like you would a private entity.

In other words, I'm free to kill as many poor people as I like, since they can't afford to pay the police to arrest me.

In other words, I'm free to kill as many poor people as I like, since they can't afford to pay the police to arrest me.
No, I was speaking about social services like the metro busline/LRT, social security (to gain access to the system you'd need to contribute and would only get what you put in), medicine (there would be no turning away people but to get regular care you'd need to contribute to the system), etc. Police would be funded by the people they catch breaking the law and there would be no choice in that situation. I also have no objections to using convicts for forced labor, especially in murder cases.

The idea is that it would force government to either become efficient and profitable or become more limited and less interfering.

You truly are a master of irrelevant minutae...
No you didn't.

You addressed a single one of my points in a shitty way.

What was that? Your lack of mathematical ability? How it's hard for me to spend the $2600 that are budgeted for 'necessities' every month on a family of five? I'd say I sank you on that point.

Address:
1) If the method for deciding that something shouldn't be taxed is that "buying it will create labor in order to produce it," then why should any good be taxed?

That's not the criteria and you know it. The tax is on all new goods and services.

2) Why does a two person household get more monthly allowance than a single person household with the same number of children?

Did it ever occur to you that adults consume more than children? Even the federal poverty calculations realize that.

3) Why does the "fair tax" prebate not scale to area cost of living? The cost of living in Seattle is nowhere near as low as probably anywhere in Alabama.
I'm sure the answer is that the pre-bate is based on the poverty line established by either the Census or by HHS. I don't actually know which one, but in the big scheme it doesn't matter. That poverty line is a constant in the lower 48 and is uniquely determined for AK and HI. It's far simpler to use a single value and not try to customize it to whatever criteria suits the administration in office. If you want to stretch your money, move out of NYC or Washington, DC and move to a more reasonable cost area.

You asked if I thought it was fair. I said that it wasn't, it was regressive. The prebate doesn't change this.

It actually makes federal taxes non-existant for people below the poverty level. And it is a progressive tax, in that you are taxed more as you spend more. You need to abandon the income vs. tax paradigm and realize that wouldn't exist under this tax. The only relation between income and tax is that you would have more disposable income to buy more retail goods and services. Thus establishing the progressive nature of this tax.

It actually makes federal taxes non-existant for people below the poverty level. And it is a progressive tax, in that you are taxed more as you spend more. You need to abandon the income vs. tax paradigm and realize that wouldn't exist under this tax. The only relation between income and tax is that you would have more disposable income to buy more retail goods and services. Thus establishing the progressive nature of this tax.

I think they don't realize that every single employed poverty stricken person in the US is paying 6.2% of their check into the government regardless of how low their income is. In the fair tax plan they don't have to pay that anymore. They won't pay any taxes other than ones they choose to.

That's not the criteria and you know it. The tax is on all new goods and services.
Maybe you should have answered this sooner, then you wouldn't be catching amnesia
And let's say that someone could purchase a yacht tax free as an investment. Doesn't someone have to build that yacht? Don't they get paid wages? Don't more yacht purchases mean more work
If the method for deciding that something shouldn't be taxed is that "buying it will create labor in order to produce it," then why should any good be taxed?

Did it ever occur to you that adults consume more than children?
Did it ever occur to you that adults can work and earn money to support the family?

I'm sure the answer is that the pre-bate is based on the poverty line established by either the Census or by HHS. I don't actually know which one, but in the big scheme it doesn't matter. That poverty line is a constant in the lower 48 and is uniquely determined for AK and HI. It's far simpler to use a single value and not try to customize it to whatever criteria suits the administration in office. If you want to stretch your money, move out of NYC or Washington, DC and move to a more reasonable cost area.
Your explanations, well they are just inane prattling now more than explanations, just get stupider and stupider.

Oh yes, because if I am getting anything out of the prebate, I have the ability to move around at will to somewhere where the taxes are less. Sounds like what the rich do now - move their assets somewhere they can't be taxed.

Why isn't the "prebate" indexed to individual state or area cost of living and poverty level? They can obviously do it as they are doing it for Hawaii and Alaska.

And it is a progressive tax, in that you are taxed more as you spend more.

Yes... but not at a higher rate.

At least beyond the poverty level.

It actually makes federal taxes non-existant for people below the poverty level. And it is a progressive tax, in that you are taxed more as you spend more. You need to abandon the income vs. tax paradigm and realize that wouldn't exist under this tax. The only relation between income and tax is that you would have more disposable income to buy more retail goods and services. Thus establishing the progressive nature of this tax.The income vs. tax paradigm exists under all forms of taxation.
Progressive taxation isn't when poor people have more disposable income, it's when they pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than rich people. Regressive taxation is when the rich pay a smaller percentage of their income than the poor. Since the poor will be spending a larger percentage of their money on "non necessities" than the rich, it is regressive. (The rich will be saving and investing their money at greater rates than the poor.)

It actually makes federal taxes non-existant for people below the poverty level.
wrong. Wrong. WRONG.
That is the most fucking absurd thing you have yet to say in this thread, and considering your reply before this one, that's a hard hurdle to jump.
The federal taxes will still exist for those below the poverty level because they have very little disposable income they can purchase items for "purpose of investment." And even in states with low costs of living, basic spending will exceed the "prebate."

And it is a progressive tax, in that you are taxed more as you spend more.
Unless you can justify the expenditure as for the "purpose of investment." Which as your very own example shows, is an extremely ambiguous definition. The FairTax will be shouldered by the lower middle class and those below the poverty line who have very little or no disposable income and will be spending all their money on areas supposedly covered by the prebate.

You need to abandon the income vs. tax paradigm and realize that wouldn't exist under this tax.
Unless of course it can be construed you have earned money from a foreign entity - Sec 905. Hmm, I wonder if they could add the income tax onto people who work for Toyota, Nissan, Suzuki, or any other number of foreign manufacturers who have enabled millions of jobs in the US by putting factories here and employing lower middle class and people at the poverty line. I bet it would once all the rich people start itemizing their huge purchases as for the "purpose of investment."

The income vs. tax paradigm exists under all forms of taxation.
Progressive taxation isn't when poor people have more disposable income, it's when they pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than rich people. Regressive taxation is when the rich pay a smaller percentage of their income than the poor. Since the poor will be spending a larger percentage of their money on "non necessities" than the rich, it is regressive. (The rich will be saving and investing their money at greater rates than the poor.)

I would say that the best possible situation for the hallowed poor is to pay no tax at all. Wouldn't you?

Now the FairTax prebate does, indeed, create that very situation for federal taxes. No one pays any income-based tax at all. Everyone is reimbursed for expenditures up to a value based on the federal poverty line. If you look at the tables and do the figuring, that means a traditional family of five will receive almost $600 every month to offset the federal sales taxes. That also means that they will have to spend about $2600 every month on new goods and services to break even.

If you want to continue to apply an inaccurate definition to the FairTax, fine. Whether poor people spend their money on necessities or non-necessities, they still get the same prebate as everyone else. Look at it this way, though...the tradeoff is that the FairTax eliminates a badly designed and very regressive system of taxes by eliminating payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.

I think they don't realize that every single employed poverty stricken person in the US is paying 6.2% of their check into the government regardless of how low their income is. In the fair tax plan they don't have to pay that anymore. They won't pay any taxes other than ones they choose to.
They only recognize that the successful earners won't be fully penalized for being successful...The fact that the horribly expensive payroll taxes won't be assessed anymore is irrelevant because those few opponents are bogged down in trite details that arise from their own ignorance or stubbornness.

I thought the total SSI/Medicare deduction was more like 11%. Is that not correct?

Your explanations, well they are just inane prattling now more than explanations, just get stupider and stupider.

Thanks for the concessions there, slick. I know you understand better than you want to let on, but your stubbornness just won't let you admit it... Better luck next time.

I would say that the best possible situation for the hallowed poor is to pay no tax at all. Wouldn't you?

Now the FairTax prebate does, indeed, create that very situation for federal taxes.
No. it. doesn't.

No one pays any income-based tax at all.
Sec 905. Read your hallowed HR 25.

Everyone is reimbursed for expenditures up to a value based on the federal poverty line.
That != full reimbursement.

If you look at the tables and do the figuring, that means a traditional family of five will receive almost $600 every month to offset the federal sales taxes.
Two people working. With a family of five where it is four children and one parent, they receive less. But no one bother to tell him that $600 won't cover all the expenses they say it is supposed to.

If you want to continue to apply an inaccurate definition to the FairTax, fine. Whether poor people spend their money on necessities or non-necessities, they still get the same prebate as everyone else. Look at it this way, though...the tradeoff is that the FairTax eliminates a badly designed and very regressive system of taxes by eliminating payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.
Lie. It doesn't do anything but change the method of taxation for the majority of Americans.

No. it. doesn't.


Sec 905. Read your hallowed HR 25.


That != full reimbursement.


Two people working. With a family of five where it is four children and one parent, they receive less. But no one bother to tell him that $600 won't cover all the expenses they say it is supposed to.


Lie. It doesn't do anything but change the method of taxation for the majority of Americans.
Like I said, you understand more than you'll admit, but your stubbornness prevents it. Here we are back at that $600 thing again...

Section 905 clearly is an improvement over current law and is there to encourage foreign investment. I don't see the problem with it.

If you're worried about wages being taxed, you'd be better off citing how people that hire nannies would be paying 23% tax for their [u]services[u]. But this withholding in section 905 is just to avoid extremely high taxes on US business abroad.

Like I said, you understand more than you'll admit, but your stubbornness prevents it. Here we are back at that $600 thing again...
Which does not take into account variable cost of living or the fact that a second parent can earn a second income with no additional requirements of time and energy on the family.

Section 905 clearly is an improvement over current law and is there to encourage foreign investment. I don't see the problem with it.
I thought you were all about the FairTax because it got rid of the income tax? Sec 905 reinstates the income tax for those who earn a wage from a foreign entity. I would bet my shiny new computer that is a concession to Detroit.

If you're worried about wages being taxed, you'd be better off citing how people that hire nannies would be paying 23% tax for their [u]services[u]. But this withholding in section 905 is just to avoid extremely high taxes on US business abroad.
Like I said, stupider and stupider. Sec 905 only applies within the US. It applies to anyone that is in a business deal with a foreign entity on US property. This will hurt blue-collar workers because foreign auto makers are huge employers, especially in the south, and cause foreign nations to increase tariffs because of the attacks on their industry. Did you even read HR 25?

I would say that the best possible situation for the hallowed poor is to pay no tax at all. Wouldn't you?Certainly. The best way to do this is to eliminate all income taxes below a certain point, and ban all sales taxes.

Now the FairTax prebate does, indeed, create that very situation for federal taxes. No one pays any income-based tax at all. Everyone is reimbursed for expenditures up to a value based on the federal poverty line. If you look at the tables and do the figuring, that means a traditional family of five will receive almost $600 every month to offset the federal sales taxes. That also means that they will have to spend about $2600 every month on new goods and services to break even.You don't actually believe that the poor aren't going to spend money on new goods and services, do you?
A poor family will need "non essentials" such as a refrigerator, a washing machine, etc. A rich family will need those same "non essentials". This will result in a larger percentage of the poor family's income being spent right off the bat. The poor will also spend a larger percentage of their income on luxuries.

If you want to continue to apply an inaccurate definition to the FairTax, fine. A tax is regressive or progressive based upon the percentage of income that goes to taxes, regardless of whether or not the tax is an income tax.

Whether poor people spend their money on necessities or non-necessities, they still get the same prebate as everyone else.This doesn't change the regressive nature of the tax, it merely alters the point at which it become regressive.

Look at it this way, though...the tradeoff is that the FairTax eliminates a badly designed and very regressive system of taxes by eliminating payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.There are exponentially better ways of doing this. The easiest is to have the rich pay into these things.

There's another thing that the FairTax would bring to the U.S. -- Jobs. Lots of jobs. The lack of any corporate income tax would make the United States the tax haven of the world. I don't think that anyone that really wanted to work would have a hard time finding a first, second, or alternate job.Why? If the fairtax is attempting revenue neutrality then why would costs change? The economy would adapt to reflect the realities of the new tax system. If corporations no longer have to pay corporation tax then this will be reflected in a demand for higher salaries by high earners to account for an increased tax burden. In addition corporations would be hit my a massive sales tax that they would either have to swallow, pass on to the consumer or the wage earner - because if the wage earner's income goes up relatively then they have less bargaining power for wage increases.

I'm not even sure if the whole of idea of a fairtax is at all feasible.
The picture below suggests that everyone would be better off under the fairtax system. How is this possible if it is attempting to achieve income neutrality? If you are paying more money out to the poor and taking less money from the rich then where on earth is the money meant to be coming from?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7a/Effectiverate.png/400px-Effectiverate.png

The fairtax would also mean that huge amounts of capital would flow out of the country as the highest earners find ways to dodge the tax via importing goods, living outside the country, or other ways that reduce the price they pay for goods and services. And since their is only one tax if a single way is found to dodge the tax then they can get out of all their tax liabilities.

The wiki also seems to suggest that the fairtax doesn't take into account tax evasion. Which it states can reach in excess of 30%. And due to the fairtax only being applied at retail level there is a higher incentive for retailers to dodge the tax than other sales taxes like VAT where the retailer has already paid several layers of the tax.

What about house buying? Most houses are obviously second hand, but most people pay for their house with a mortgage, which is a service. This means effective house prices for the buyer would increase 23% before interest is applied. If the fairtax doesn't include mortgages then you have just opened up a huge tax loophole in the financial services industry.

Let's say a dodgy house is 'refurbished'. It is filled with products that were bought at the intermediate stage and then sold for a low price plus the cost of the products. It is exempt from sales tax because the house is being bought, not the refurbishing services, and the house is second hand. The products are removed and then the house is sold back to the original owner, and the products sold on as second-hand goods and thus exempt from tax. The whole physical process need not actually take place, just so long as their is enough paperwork to satisfy the authorities.

The fairtax is a simple tax. As such it will be blissfully easy to evade, and therefore would be a disaster.

Ooh... Everybody gets a welfare check!

Theft, even carefully crafted to appeal to the largest number, is still theft.

Ooh... Everybody gets a welfare check!

Theft, even carefully crafted to appeal to the largest number, is still theft.

Payment for services rendered is only theft if you're a communist.

Payment for services rendered is only theft if you're a communist.

Even if those services are forced on you at gunpoint.

Even if those services are forced on you at gunpoint.

Again, only a communist would think that people are forced to use money at gunpoint. Guess what? Money is a service. If you don't use said service, you don't have to pay for said service.

Certainly. The best way to do this is to eliminate all income taxes below a certain point, and ban all sales taxes.

You don't actually believe that the poor aren't going to spend money on new goods and services, do you?

I think your still missing the point and it's probably intentional. No one will pay taxes on the first x thousand of dollars they spend each month. The scale slides based on family size. Because the tax on that x thousand dollars is refunded each month, we can say that the month's sales tax payments on x thousand dollars is zero. It doesn't matter what you buy or where you buy it, you still get that refund. Clearly a way to stretch money would be to go to second hand stores for appliances and clothing. I've never bought a new car, why should a low earner? But if they do, the tax on the first x thousand will be refunded...

There are exponentially better ways of doing this. The easiest is to have the rich pay into these things.
I guess we all have our little bits of dogma to push. Mine is keep what you earn and yours is punish the successful.

I keep tellin' ya folks, the APT tax is better all the way.

I'm going to move to a country where I can escape taxes like Snake Plissken escaped from LA!!

I'm going to move to a country where I can escape taxes like Snake Plissken escaped from LA!!

Don't forget to steal the Sword of Damocles control and enter the world code. :D

I think your still missing the point and it's probably intentional. No one will pay taxes on the first x thousand of dollars they spend each month.
Based on what?

The scale slides based on family size.
But not to number of wage earners or to cost of living.

Because the tax on that x thousand dollars is refunded each month,
No rebate exceeds a thousand dollars. So x better be a fraction.

I guess we all have our little bits of dogma to push. Mine is keep what you earn and yours is punish the successful.
Considering your dozens of incorrect views and readings of HR25, assuming you even read it, I will have to question your dogma.

Don't forget to steal the Sword of Damocles control and enter the world code. :D

Silly, that's like forgetting to wear pants.

*looks down*

Ugh. *Smacks forehead*

I think your still missing the point and it's probably intentional. No one will pay taxes on the first x thousand of dollars they spend each month. The scale slides based on family size. Because the tax on that x thousand dollars is refunded each month, we can say that the month's sales tax payments on x thousand dollars is zero. It doesn't matter what you buy or where you buy it, you still get that refund. Clearly a way to stretch money would be to go to second hand stores for appliances and clothing. I've never bought a new car, why should a low earner? But if they do, the tax on the first x thousand will be refunded...Isn't the prebate intended to take care of necessities only? This is why I focused on non-necessities like refrigerators and the like - because the prebate isn't intended to cover them.

I guess we all have our little bits of dogma to push. Mine is keep what you earn and yours is punish the successful.Mine is that everyone should pay their fair share of taxes.

Isn't the prebate intended to take care of necessities only? This is why I focused on non-necessities like refrigerators and the like - because the prebate isn't intended to cover them.
The prebate will not even cover all the necessities it is intended to cover (since according to FairTax.org, the prebate is supposed to cover costs of food, medical care, clothing, shelter, etc). And not even the highest prebate reaches a thousand dollars.

Mine is that everyone should pay their fair share of taxes.
I prefer "people should pay what they can afford."

I keep tellin' ya folks, the APT tax is better all the way.

i dont know about better all the way, but at least it doesn't set out to exempt the rich from paying taxes on the overwhelming bulk of their economic activity.

Isn't the prebate intended to take care of necessities only? This is why I focused on non-necessities like refrigerators and the like - because the prebate isn't intended to cover them.

There seems to be a complete lack of understanding of what the prebate, rebate, refund, whatever you want to call it really is...It's not a payment, it's a tax refund. It isn't for buying anything, it's a refund of the sales tax on what you buy, up to a threshold.

For instance, if you are entitled to a monthly refund of $500, you will pay zero sales tax on the first $2200 per month that you spend for new goods or services each month. You will be paid $500, even if you don't spend any money that month, of if none of the expenses are for taxable items.

Since I haven't done all that well in my several explanations, here's a quote from the FairTax.org outline ...

The prebate makes the FairTax progressive.
To ensure no American pays tax on necessities, the FairTax Plan provides a prepaid, monthly rebate (prebate) for every registered household to cover the consumption tax spent on necessities up to the federal poverty level. This, along with several other features, is how the FairTax completely untaxes the poor, lowers the tax burden on most, while making the overall rate progressive. ...


What you've all missed is the fact that buying power increases for everyone, and much more so for the holy poor. In fact, low income households get almost a 30% increase in buying power, due to the elimination of payroll taxes, while high income households only benefit with about a 5% increase in buying power.

Hey, whatever happened to that one guy's post...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12918994&postcount=107

What you've all missed is the fact that buying power increases for everyone, and much more so for the holy poor. In fact, low income households get almost a 30% increase in buying power, due to the elimination of payroll taxes, while high income households only benefit with about a 5% increase in buying power.
I fail to see an explanation on how there is an increase in buying power for the poor.

Hey, whatever happened to that one guy's post...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12918994&postcount=107

Very impressive, it even has a graph...

Why? If the fairtax is attempting revenue neutrality then why would costs change? The economy would adapt to reflect the realities of the new tax system. If corporations no longer have to pay corporation tax then this will be reflected in a demand for higher salaries by high earners to account for an increased tax burden. In addition corporations would be hit my a massive sales tax that they would either have to swallow, pass on to the consumer or the wage earner - because if the wage earner's income goes up relatively then they have less bargaining power for wage increases.

I'm not even sure if the whole of idea of a fairtax is at all feasible.
The picture below suggests that everyone would be better off under the fairtax system. How is this possible if it is attempting to achieve income neutrality? If you are paying more money out to the poor and taking less money from the rich then where on earth is the money meant to be coming from?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7a/Effectiverate.png/400px-Effectiverate.png

The fairtax would also mean that huge amounts of capital would flow out of the country as the highest earners find ways to dodge the tax via importing goods, living outside the country, or other ways that reduce the price they pay for goods and services. And since their is only one tax if a single way is found to dodge the tax then they can get out of all their tax liabilities.

The wiki also seems to suggest that the fairtax doesn't take into account tax evasion. Which it states can reach in excess of 30%. And due to the fairtax only being applied at retail level there is a higher incentive for retailers to dodge the tax than other sales taxes like VAT where the retailer has already paid several layers of the tax.

What about house buying? Most houses are obviously second hand, but most people pay for their house with a mortgage, which is a service. This means effective house prices for the buyer would increase 23% before interest is applied. If the fairtax doesn't include mortgages then you have just opened up a huge tax loophole in the financial services industry.

Let's say a dodgy house is 'refurbished'. It is filled with products that were bought at the intermediate stage and then sold for a low price plus the cost of the products. It is exempt from sales tax because the house is being bought, not the refurbishing services, and the house is second hand. The products are removed and then the house is sold back to the original owner, and the products sold on as second-hand goods and thus exempt from tax. The whole physical process need not actually take place, just so long as their is enough paperwork to satisfy the authorities.

The fairtax is a simple tax. As such it will be blissfully easy to evade, and therefore would be a disaster.

Hey, whatever happened to that one guy's post...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12918994&postcount=107
It got lost in a sea of irrelevance. He's another one of those that fail to read much about the tax, so why should I put the initial effort into educating him? If we don't have any common ground, it's pointless to discuss. The wiki isn't the same as either FairTax.org or HB 25.

Evasion is something that will always exist, but when you're paying the tax at the point of purchase, it's a lot harder to accomplish than when you're filling out the forms required in a voluntary compliance scheme.

I fail to see an explanation on how there is an increase in buying power for the poor.

Fail is an appropriate word for you to use, because you fail on so many fronts...

It's because the excessively regressive burden of payroll taxes is eliminated. The key condition is that one must actually earn money to benefit. That must be where you lost me.

Fail is an appropriate word for you to use, because you fail on so many fronts...
Apparently I fail some where below you on maturity.

It's because the excessively regressive burden of payroll taxes is eliminated. The key condition is that one must actually earn money to benefit. That must be where you lost me.
I still don't see said explanation.

Why is there a bias against single parents?
Because government bean counters like arbitrary numbers.

Why is there a bias against single parents?

It got lost in a sea of irrelevance. He's another one of those that fail to read much about the tax, so why should I put the initial effort into educating him? If we don't have any common ground, it's pointless to discuss. The wiki isn't the same as either FairTax.org or HB 25.

Evasion is something that will always exist, but when you're paying the tax at the point of purchase, it's a lot harder to accomplish than when you're filling out the forms required in a voluntary compliance scheme.

Hmm, I was wondering how you'd do it.

Go on. Tear into it. Point for point, just for fun. Entertain the masses.

Why is there a bias against single parents?
There is no bias. The tax isn't based on income, but on consumption. Facts are that adults consume more than children.

Facts are that adults consume more than children.
That fact is dubious in the utmost.
Also, there is the undeniable fact that adults can earn money. A two adult household can earn twice as much money working the same hours as a single parent household.

I still don't see said explanation.

That fact is dubious in the utmost.
Also, there is the undeniable fact that adults can earn money. A two adult household can earn twice as much money working the same hours as a single parent household.
I've offered plenty of explanations for each of these "arguments". It seems that you choose not to understand, rather than offer any objection. Your biggest failing is that you don't see earning is irrelevant in this system of taxation. Consumption is what matters, thus the additional offset for a second adult.

Anyway, we've done this dance long enough. If you have something new to add, I'd be amazed, but try anyway.

Hmm, I was wondering how you'd do it.

Go on. Tear into it. Point for point, just for fun. Entertain the masses.
Nonsense. A discussion requires that both sides have the knowledge to carry on. If someone is not going to get the facts from the source, then why should I be bothered to refute his erroneous claims?

Nonsense. A discussion requires that both sides have the knowledge to carry on. If someone is not going to get the facts from the source, then why should I be bothered to refute his erroneous claims?Because your site seems to claim that either prices would be lower, wages higher or investments worth more if retailers had higher total tax liabilities. Their 23% as opposed to their quoted current total of 20%?

I've offered plenty of explanations for each of these "arguments". It seems that you choose not to understand, rather than offer any objection. Your biggest failing is that you don't see earning is irrelevant in this system of taxation. Consumption is what matters, thus the additional offset for a second adult.
Your failing is your see earnings as irrelevant to consumption. With two people earning money, they can afford to consume more than one person. And adults have a far easier time and ability to go without than children do. But to the point:

The price for food for four children isn't going to go down because there is only one adult in the picture. The price of food for one adult still exists, but that adult has to pay for that food plus that of 4 children. Two adults, each with their own job, let's say each earns the same wage as the single parent. Individually, they can each afford to feed themselves and their four children. Together they can far more easily afford to feed themselves and their four children. However, according to you and the government, two people each with the same wage as a single parent somehow come out with less money relatively.

Also on adults consuming more, let's not even get into the fact that children's clothing (which is factored into the calculation) has to be replaced regularly because of continued growth. Also, children, being in school around other children, will cost more in healthcare (also factored into the calculation) than adults because of the cost of treating general childhood illnesses and paying for vaccines. When looking at all things covered by the calculation, children "consume" far more than adults.

Doesn't Arizona use the Fair tax system?

I'm all for it, since if it ever passes, I'll buy almost exclusively in second-hand merchandise, thus paying far fewer in taxes than I do currently.

...AND I get a check from Uncle Sam every month on top of that. What's not to like? :D


Same here. The only new items I regularly purchase are school related stuff (if that fits here) hygiene products, underwear and foods (and sometimes even those come from a salvage store) where maybe the truck wrecked or something was dropped and not deemed worthy enough to go into regular stores. On the rare occurrence of buying an appliance I always buy used anyway if it's anything that would be over $40 new. Automobiles I have always bought used. I don't think I'd buy a new car even if I was rich, because I personally feel it is a waste of money.

As of now I get roughly 30% of my check taken.. then I have to pay 7% or more on everything I purchase plus pay repeatable taxes on my car every year and taxes on gas, insurance, tag stickers .. inspection stickers. If I owned a home or land I'd have to pay taxes (state and god forbid if you are in the city limits -- you should see the for sale signs go up around here when the city yet again broadens its perimeter) on that every year (which makes absolutely no sense to me) even if it's paid off. I could get Medicaid if I needed it but I don't.

I'll have to read more about this and look at all the fine details if this truly has a chance of being passed. It's hard for me to believe that the government would actually do anything to truly help regular folk.

Same here. The only new items I regularly purchase are school related stuff (if that fits here) hygiene products, underwear and foods (and sometimes even those come from a salvage store) where maybe the truck wrecked or something was dropped and not deemed worthy enough to go into regular stores. On the rare occurrence of buying an appliance I always buy used anyway if it's anything that would be over $40 new. Automobiles I have always bought used. I don't think I'd buy a new car even if I was rich, because I personally feel it is a waste of money.
You have to pay taxes on services. Buy used car from a dealer? Pay for services. Etc.

Your failing is your see earnings as irrelevant to consumption. With two people earning money, they can afford to consume more than one person. And adults have a far easier time and ability to go without than children do. But to the point:

The price for food for four children isn't going to go down because there is only one adult in the picture. The price of food for one adult still exists, but that adult has to pay for that food plus that of 4 children. Two adults, each with their own job, let's say each earns the same wage as the single parent. Individually, they can each afford to feed themselves and their four children. Together they can far more easily afford to feed themselves and their four children. However, according to you and the government, two people each with the same wage as a single parent somehow come out with less money relatively.

Also on adults consuming more, let's not even get into the fact that children's clothing (which is factored into the calculation) has to be replaced regularly because of continued growth. Also, children, being in school around other children, will cost more in healthcare (also factored into the calculation) than adults because of the cost of treating general childhood illnesses and paying for vaccines. When looking at all things covered by the calculation, children "consume" far more than adults.
You're still missing the point. This isn't about welfare. It is about replacing the income tax with a better system. It doesn't matter how much someone makes, since income is irrelevant. The ONLY link between income and the FairTax comes into play when the rebate is calculated. That's based on an existing federal calculation which does indeed discriminate between single and dual adult households.

As worked up as you are over a small issue, I would suggest you go figure out why the government calculates the poverty line where it does. But I fail to see why this is a flaw in the proposed tax system.

Doesn't Arizona use the Fair tax system?
More than likely, if it has no income tax. Florida and Texas are two of the largest economies in the world and they rely solely on retail sales taxes for their budgets. Retail sales taxes do raise revenue and it will work.


Will it ever pass? Of course not. Between ignorance and the outright refusal of politicians to surrender this kind of power to the population, there isn't a chance in hell that it will pass.

Oh yeah, the 16th amendment has to be repealed. That's not too likely either.

You're still missing the point.
No, you are missing the point. Of course this isn't about welfare, this is about mathematical, logical conclusions.

This isn't about welfare. It is about replacing the income tax with a better system. It doesn't matter how much someone makes, since income is irrelevant. The ONLY link between income and the FairTax comes into play when the rebate is calculated. That's based on an existing federal calculation which does indeed discriminate between single and dual adult households.
A discrimination inverse to what it should be on a factual basis. And ok, income is irrelevant to the FairTax system, except, as you admit, in the very fucking topic of the discussion we are having.

More than likely, if it has no income tax. Florida and Texas are two of the largest economies in the world and they rely solely on retail sales taxes for their budgets. Retail sales taxes do raise revenue and it will work.
Revenue on sales taxes probably work great somewhere like Florida where it is a retiree and tourist state primarily. Hell, the property tax Disney World pays alone...

And Texas has a huge economy because it is a major producer of expendable goods.

More than likely, if it has no income tax. Florida and Texas are two of the largest economies in the world and they rely solely on retail sales taxes for their budgets. Retail sales taxes do raise revenue and it will work.


Will it ever pass? Of course not. Between ignorance and the outright refusal of politicians to surrender this kind of power to the population, there isn't a chance in hell that it will pass.

Oh yeah, the 16th amendment has to be repealed. That's not too likely either.There is a corporate income tax and an annually collected property tax in Florida. Texas also has franchise taxes and inheritance tax.

Retail sales taxes do raise revenue

who ever suggested otherwise?

There seems to be a complete lack of understanding of what the prebate, rebate, refund, whatever you want to call it really is...It's not a payment, it's a tax refund. It isn't for buying anything, it's a refund of the sales tax on what you buy, up to a threshold.

For instance, if you are entitled to a monthly refund of $500, you will pay zero sales tax on the first $2200 per month that you spend for new goods or services each month. You will be paid $500, even if you don't spend any money that month, of if none of the expenses are for taxable items.

Since I haven't done all that well in my several explanations, here's a quote from the FairTax.org outline ...

The prebate makes the FairTax progressive.
To ensure no American pays tax on necessities, the FairTax Plan provides a prepaid, monthly rebate (prebate) for every registered household to cover the consumption tax spent on necessities up to the federal poverty level. This, along with several other features, is how the FairTax completely untaxes the poor, lowers the tax burden on most, while making the overall rate progressive. ...
(emphasis mine)
As the paragraph you've quoted shows, the prebate is meant to cover the taxes on necessities. Yes, someone might not buy that many necessities, but other people might buy more.
Nonetheless, the people who earn less will spend a greater percentage of their income than people who earn more. This makes the FairTax regressive. Since everyone gets the prebate, it does not make the FairTax progressive.

What you've all missed is the fact that buying power increases for everyone, and much more so for the holy poor. In fact, low income households get almost a 30% increase in buying power, due to the elimination of payroll taxes, while high income households only benefit with about a 5% increase in buying power.What you've missed is that it would be simpler and better to eliminate the payroll taxes.