NationStates Jolt Archive

I’ve been listening to the Libertarian talk show host Neal Boortz http://boortz.com/ talk about the Fair Tax for quite some time and think it is a pretty good idea. If you are not familiar with it you can get more information here http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

In any case, if it came up as a national referendum, would you vote for or against the Fair Tax?

against.

Against. As would nearly everybody else.

as is? against.

Fair tax is a smokescreen of promises that if ever implimented would harm the economy, be a disaster for businesses and accomplish absolutly nothing.

Against.

Ok, so why are you against it? People up to the poverty level would pay $0.00 in taxes. People who spend a lot would pay a lot. So, why the opposition. Look at how many $$$ would be saved with the elimination of the tax code and IRS.

Fair tax is a smokescreen of promises that if ever implimented would harm the economy, be a disaster for businesses and accomplish absolutly nothing.

Against.

What in the world makes you think that?

What in the world makes you think that?

I've explained this numerous times on thos forum, so I am weary to do so again, but to give the quick and dirty rundown:

1) it will devalue any existing retirement, investment, and savings account tremendously

2) currently businesses are taxed not on income, but on profit. Most businesses don't run a profit until at least the second, if not third year. If they were taxed on income, not profit, they'd be essentially bankrupted, that's exactly what this does

3) the figure of 25% or so that most "fair tax" folks already argue for is disasterously low, ludicrusly so, it would in all probability be considerably higher

4) it would create a strong incentive for black market transactions and labeling products as "used" to escape any tax, as well as create a paperless, cash only, undeground series of transactions

Is this one of those things where people come out of a Jet Li movie thinking they know Kung Fu?

Is this one of those things where people come out of a Jet Li movie thinking they know Kung Fu?

Could be. They say they are against it but don't say why. I wonder if they really know something about it or if they are just listening to the opinions of those who are opposed to it. When I first heard about it I was against it, but as I learned more about it and how it will work I now support it.

I’ve been listening to the Libertarian talk show host Neal Boortz http://boortz.com/ talk about the Fair Tax for quite some time and think it is a pretty good idea. If you are not familiar with it you can get more information here http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

In any case, if it came up as a national referendum, would you vote for or against the Fair Tax?

We already have increasing tax brackets for the wealthy, that is similar to 'fair tax' and besides, everyone should pay taxes without extreme reason not to. I worked at a job (full time) making 16,000 per year, roughly, and I could easily afford taxes, granted I don't have a family yet, but that was also single income, so why should I have had to pay nothing in taxes when I could afford to pay them?

Against.

Ok, so why are you against it? People up to the poverty level would pay $0.00 in taxes.

They don't as it is.

People who spend a lot would pay a lot.

People who spend a lot typically have an income sufficient to be taxed, therefore are paying anyway

So, why the opposition. Look at how many $$$ would be saved with the elimination of the tax code and IRS.

an amount, actually fairly trifiling all things considered, and the idea that we're just going to magically make the IRS go *poof* is somehow assuming that every business will gladly comply, and we no longer need accountants, auditors, and paper trails to ensure they're paying the right amount in taxes.

Moreover, any amount saved would be more than lost again once people start doing tax avoidance transactions en masse

Ok, so why are you against it? People up to the poverty level would pay $0.00 in taxes. People who spend a lot would pay a lot. So, why the opposition. Look at how many $$$ would be saved with the elimination of the tax code and IRS.

i find it ridiculous to suggest that the implementation of the national sales tax as the ONLY source of federal revenue would be easy and cheap.

so "People up to the poverty level would pay $0.00 in taxes". how do they know who that is? hmmm i guess they would have to continue to follow people's incomes eh?

thats not cheap.

then there is the stupid idea of "prebates" where they government has to keep track of every single freaking person in the country and send them a CHECK every month.

thats not cheap.

then there is the enforcement that has to make sure that no one is avoiding reporting sales. the incentive to pay for whatever goods possible under the table would be enormous so the enforcment would have to be harsh.

thats not cheap.

I’ve been listening to the Libertarian talk show host Neal Boortz http://boortz.com/ talk about the Fair Tax for quite some time and think it is a pretty good idea. If you are not familiar with it you can get more information here http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

In any case, if it came up as a national referendum, would you vote for or against the Fair Tax?

We already have increasing tax brackets for the wealthy, that is similar to 'fair tax' and besides, everyone should pay taxes without extreme reason not to. I worked at a job (full time) making 16,000 per year, roughly, and I could easily afford taxes, granted I don't have a family yet, but that was also single income, so why should I have had to pay nothing in taxes when I could afford to pay them?

Against.

When I first heard about it I was against it, but as I learned more about it and how it will work I now support it.

Same here, except we're missing the crucial third step

"then, when I actually sat down and thought about what fair tax was supposed to accomplish, what it would need to accomplish it, and the problems that would cause, I cam to the final conclusion that it was a steaming pile of shit".

Could be. They say they are against it but don't say why.

Well, maybe that's because:

would you vote for or against the Fair Tax?

You didn't ask. You merely asked us whether we'd vote for it, or against it, nothing more. If you wanted to know if we'd vote for, or against, and why, you should have asked that.

Okay, Celtlund, I'll ask you the same thing I asked the lover of Patroclus:

Has this tax system ever been shown to work? Is there a single historical example of a developed nation managing to provide all the essential services of government solely through sales tax?

I'm not terribly read up on it, but I don't see how a government of a nation the size of America could be run on sales tax alone, without it being a fucking huge sales tax. And how are you meant to fix it so people below the poverty line don't pay tax if you don't have an IRS and thus don't know who is below the poverty line?


You know, you could just pay people who are below the poverty line to buy stuff for you and skip out on taxes. Hah, I know hardly anything about accounting or economics and I've already beat your fair tax system.

Ugh, I accidentally voted for the "Fair Tax" instead of against. Anyways, it's a stupid idea for making the rich richer and the poor poorer. No.

You know, you could just pay people who are below the poverty line to buy stuff for you and skip out on taxes. Hah, I know hardly anything about accounting or economics and I've already beat your fair tax system.

Don't even go that far. eBay has the system beat already, by the look of it.

I'm confused, is the IRS a big problem in the US :confused:

just sounds like one of those batshit insane oh so American fads like libertarianism (oh how funny how the two connect what a coincidence...)

I'm confused, is the IRS a big problem in the US :confused:

just sounds like one of those batshit insane oh so American fads like libertarianism (oh how funny how the two connect what a coincidence...)

I don't think it's really a problem unless you have a problem with paying income tax. As most rich people do.

Good idea, but it will not work.

First of all, every time I hear a member of the senate say that "the rich must pay their share of the taxes", I have to laugh out loud. How many senators are rich? All of them. Every time that they tinker with the tax code to appease the masses, they always put the exceptions for themselves (and all the other rich ones).

If the congress tries to do it, they will make it a massive bill with so many special interest benefits hidden (like now) that it will be a major cluster f***.

About 10 years ago, someone proposed a straight flat tax. You do away will all deductions (most only benefit the rich), and it does not matter if it is individual or corporate. You pay a 10% flat tax. Those that are under the poverty level pay nothing. Of course, something this simple will never go thru the congress, since it does not allow for any deductions for their "rich" cronnies.

against. I don't see why it would be an improvement. Could someone who knows a lot about taxes explain how this would work in practice, what the effects on a normal person/business would be and why this would be an improvement?

Good idea, but it will not work.

First of all, every time I hear a member of the senate say that "the rich must pay their share of the taxes", I have to laugh out loud. How many senators are rich? All of them. Every time that they tinker with the tax code to appease the masses, they always put the exceptions for themselves (and all the other rich ones).

If the congress tries to do it, they will make it a massive bill with so many special interest benefits hidden (like now) that it will be a major cluster f***.

About 10 years ago, someone proposed a straight flat tax. You do away will all deductions (most only benefit the rich), and it does not matter if it is individual or corporate. You pay a 10% flat tax. Those that are under the poverty level pay nothing. Of course, something this simple will never go thru the congress, since it does not allow for any deductions for their "rich" cronnies.

Ten percent?

And there maybe a slight issue just around the incomes between 100 and 110% of the poverty line, exclusive.

I don't think it's really a problem unless you have a problem with paying income tax. As most rich people do.

the rich are hardest hit by society, did you know in some parts of the world they don't even have charity support :(

Against, as I am against all forms of regressive taxation.

the rich are hardest hit by society, did you know in some parts of the world they don't even have charity support :(

Do you have a source for that?
I remember my teacher telling me that some rich people aren't actually wealthy, e.g. own land but struggle to make a good income, also there's various problems with identifying someone as rich. What parts of the world don't they have charity support? I thought the definition of charity was to help anyone they can? Maybe i'm wrong. (within whatever certain cause they want to help, regardless of income).

I'm not sure if the rich are hardest hit by society, when you say "hardest hit" do you mean socially excluded?
Your statement suggests that society controls what you do, not you controlling what society does, which is true to a point and is supported by various theories such as Marxism the 'struggle' against an oppressive society, or Functionalism where society is a necessary thing and social inequality is also necessary (not good though), and Liberal Feminism, Radical Feminism especially and Marxist Feminism, that men oppress women, that society is run by men and is 'patriarchal' (meaning male dominated), of course there's various reasons why each of the theories are relevant to a point, and many problems with each of them. But there is one similarity between them and that is they all suggest that it's society that's controlling what happens to you, through the institutions and organisations of say School, Hospital, University, Banks. Also known as Macro theories.

There are a number of theories however that focus on the individuals influences on society such as Weberism, Symbolic interactionism and Post-Modernism. They argue that people do have power to change their surroundings, also known as Micro theories.
I'd like to point out that i've only briefly mentioned a couple of theories that i've studied, there are FAR more aspects to each one, i've made a sort of caricature of each theory to add wieght to my obervation, and to avoid going into too much detail on them.

the rich are hardest hit by society, did you know in some parts of the world they don't even have charity support :(
It's shameful really. I mean, if your country won't pander to the rich then why would they want to live there? And if your country doesn't have rich people......well that's just sad.
Do you have a source for that?
I remember my teacher telling me that some rich people aren't actually wealthy, e.g. own land but struggle to make a good income, also there's various problems with identifying someone as rich. What parts of the world don't they have charity support? I thought the definition of charity was to help anyone they can? Maybe i'm wrong. (within whatever certain cause they want to help, regardless of income).

I'm not sure if the rich are hardest hit by society, when you say "hardest hit" do you mean socially excluded?
Your statement suggests that society controls what you do, not you controlling what society does, which is true to a point and is supported by various theories such as Marxism the 'struggle' against an oppressive society, or Functionalism where society is a necessary thing and social inequality is also necessary (not good though), and Liberal Feminism, Radical Feminism especially and Marxist Feminism, that men oppress women, that society is run by men and is 'patriarchal' (meaning male dominated), of course there's various reasons why each of the theories are relevant to a point, and many problems with each of them. But there is one similarity between them and that is they all suggest that it's society that's controlling what happens to you, through the institutions and organisations of say School, Hospital, University, Banks. Also known as Macro theories.

There are a number of theories however that focus on the individuals influences on society such as Weberism, Symbolic interactionism and Post-Modernism. They argue that people do have power to change their surroundings, also known as Micro theories.
I'd like to point out that i've only briefly mentioned a couple of theories that i've studied, there are FAR more aspects to each one, i've made a sort of caricature of each theory to add wieght to my obervation, and to avoid going into too much detail on them.

........

It's shameful really. I mean, if your country won't pander to the rich then why would they want to live there? And if your country doesn't have rich people......well that's just sad.


........

what? did i go to far? or not enough?

what? did i go to far? or not enough?

Too far.

Do you have a source for that?
I remember my teacher telling me that some rich people aren't actually wealthy, e.g. own land but struggle to make a good income, also there's various problems with identifying someone as rich. What parts of the world don't they have charity support? I thought the definition of charity was to help anyone they can? Maybe i'm wrong. (within whatever certain cause they want to help, regardless of income).

I'm not sure if the rich are hardest hit by society, when you say "hardest hit" do you mean socially excluded?
Your statement suggests that society controls what you do, not you controlling what society does, which is true to a point and is supported by various theories such as Marxism the 'struggle' against an oppressive society, or Functionalism where society is a necessary thing and social inequality is also necessary (not good though), and Liberal Feminism, Radical Feminism especially and Marxist Feminism, that men oppress women, that society is run by men and is 'patriarchal' (meaning male dominated), of course there's various reasons why each of the theories are relevant to a point, and many problems with each of them. But there is one similarity between them and that is they all suggest that it's society that's controlling what happens to you, through the institutions and organisations of say School, Hospital, University, Banks. Also known as Macro theories.

There are a number of theories however that focus on the individuals influences on society such as Weberism, Symbolic interactionism and Post-Modernism. They argue that people do have power to change their surroundings, also known as Micro theories.
I'd like to point out that i've only briefly mentioned a couple of theories that i've studied, there are FAR more aspects to each one, i've made a sort of caricature of each theory to add wieght to my obervation, and to avoid going into too much detail on them.

Firstly, you should familiarise yourself with the idea of satire. Secondly, it seems that every time you post you feel the need to use your (A level?) sociology and it's not always what's wanted.

And the problems with "identifying someone as rich" that you're thinking of are actually the problems with identifying someone as upper class.

Do you have a source for that?
I remember my teacher telling me that some rich people aren't actually wealthy, e.g. own land but struggle to make a good income

British aristocracy would be an example, however I was more referring to charities basically set up to avoid taxes and not pay a penny to those poor folk

It's shameful really. I mean, if your country won't pander to the rich then why would they want to live there? And if your country doesn't have rich people......well that's just sad.

without rich people how can you have a government? who do you aspire to be like?!

Too far.

sorry, i can't help typing all this information.

Firstly, you should familiarise yourself with the idea satire. Secondly, it seems that every time you post you feel the need to use your (A level?) sociology and it's not always what's wanted.

And the problems with "identifying someone as rich" that you're thinking of are actually the problems with identifying someone as upper class.

It helps me revise.
"and it's not always what's wanted" by you, you mean.
Rich comes into being upper class at some point.

Okay so how should i answer a question or place my views on a statement?
should i email you first just to make sure it's okay? or just not bother? e-mailing you would take forever to make comments, and not bothering defeats the purpose of the internet.
Basically (if i'm reading this correctly) you're telling me to shut up, in a backward way.

Okay so how should i answer a question or place my views on a statement?
should i email you first just to make sure it's okay? or just not bother? e-mailing you would take forever to make comments, and not bothering defeats the purpose of the internet.
Basically (if i'm reading this correctly) you're telling me to shut up, in a backward way.

in the nicest possible way (http://wesleycrusher.ytmnd.com/)

I think your just reading into it too far, you can't expect a thread on fair tax to be all that serious

I'm confused, is the IRS a big problem in the US :confused:
No

just sounds like one of those batshit insane oh so American fads like libertarianism (oh how funny how the two connect what a coincidence...)

exactly

in the nicest possible way (http://wesleycrusher.ytmnd.com/)

I think your just reading into it too far, you can't expect a thread on fair tax to be all that serious

...................

Against for many of the reasons already stated.

Also, if Bortz is for it that's another good reason it's a bad idea.

...................

you seem to have damaged your funny bones, I hope you get better soon:(

Against for many of the reasons already stated.

the name itself is an oxymoron, who goes round claiming there taxes are fair!?

First: Neal Boortz is an asshole who should be ostracized and shunned by the Libertarian Party for supporting the Iraq War.

Second: I would personally prefer only one tax, a small poll (head) tax that's the same for everyone. The FairTax is better than most taxes, but it's still nothing to go bananas for.

Second: I would personally prefer only one tax, a small poll (head) tax that's the same for everyone.

Margaret Thatcher is that you?!

breaking news: poll tax was tried in the UK and went rather south of the border (which in our case would be freezing channel water with strong winds and an impressive current:()

you seem to have damaged your funny bones, I hope you get better soon:(
the name itself is an oxymoron, who goes round claiming there taxes are fair!?

no just hungover.
The fairest tax is one that doesn't exist, therefore because i tax everyone nothing i'm the fairest person here.(why am i plagued with images from snow white? "mirror mirror on the wall who is the fairest of them all")

no just hungover.

and you decided to go on NSG :eek::p

The fairest tax is one that doesn't exist, therefore because i tax everyone nothing i'm the fairest person here.(why am i plagued with images from snow white? "mirror mirror on the wall who is the fairest of them all")

anarchist!

anarchist!

*firebombs thread*

Ok, so why are you against it? People up to the poverty level would pay $0.00 in taxes. People who spend a lot would pay a lot. So, why the opposition. Look at how many $$$ would be saved with the elimination of the tax code and IRS.my concern is that there's a point of wealth beyond with consumption doesn't really apply...if it were paired with property tax then I'd be all for it, but as it is people could horde wealth and only be taxed on the 1% of their income that was necessary to spend to live comfortably. maybe I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem very progressive, though other aspects of the fair tax scheme appeal to me.

Margaret Thatcher is that you?!

How did you know!? :eek:

How did you know!? :eek:

What was the name of that programme made that ripped it out of the higher up politicians, and it had those freaky mannequin things, a comedy, started in 1980s i think UK?

What was the name of that programme made that ripped it out of the higher up politicians, and it had those freaky mannequin things, a comedy, started in 1980s i think UK?
Spitting Image. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spitting_Image)

*firebombs thread*

*summons Swiss guards*

How did you know!? :eek:

only Thatcher would scare everyone away with a poll tax so she could find the Spanish treasure buried under Jolt forums!

*sets "hilarious" trap which someone would only operate in exchange for a Scooby snack*

What was the name of that programme made that ripped it out of the higher up politicians, and it had those freaky mannequin things, a comedy, started in 1980s i think UK?

spitting image? (http://youtube.com/watch?v=l9SIpjWesf0&feature=related)

better video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkSapMfaBBg&feature=related)

Spitting Image. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spitting_Image)

that was it!
I remember seeing one of those as a little Kid, where this guy was stuck in a room with the walls slowly closing in on him, from then on i was immensly scared of mannequins and closing walls for a few years at least.

Ok, so why are you against it? People up to the poverty level would pay $0.00 in taxes. People who spend a lot would pay a lot. So, why the opposition. Look at how many $$$ would be saved with the elimination of the tax code and IRS.
Celt, the crowd here is anything but representative of taxpaying citizens. The best they can do is attack the plan with unfounded claims against it. The fact that we (Americans for Fair Taxation) have had one successful rally after another demonstrates the grassroots support in the real world.

The country is ready to abandon the income tax and the IRS. Sadly, the power-hungry in Congress will never let that happen.

we (Americans for Fair Taxation) have had one successful rally after another demonstrates the grassroots support in the real world.

huh?! so how come it hasn't caught on anywhere else?

huh?! so how come it hasn't caught on anywhere else?
What are you talking about? Sales taxes are used all over.

We already have a 25% sales tax here. Would I suggest getting a 25% sales tax in the US? No, I would not, especially because black market wise, sales tax has a tendency to be far far worse than income. Also, I'd rather hurt the income of people who aren't creative or risk-taking enough to make their own shops than shopkeepers and small-time business men (who, at least here, have to add sales tax to their costs on top of income tax).

My understanding of this system is:
1. No income tax.
2. High sales tax.

This does not seem to be unreasonable to me and only punishes those who choose to live lavishly. I'm not sure if it covers this, but if taxes are not be charged on essentials such as groceries then we don't fuck over the poor either.

Celt, the crowd here is anything but representative of taxpaying citizens. The best they can do is attack the plan with unfounded claims against it.

I am a taxpayer. Main breadwinner for a single family household. I did my own taxes for years before I got married. To me, it looks unrealistic. A pipe dream. So, rather than attack it, I asked for a single example of it actually working. No one has provided one.

When I asked for numbers, you simply made some vague allusions to experts.

I don't think I'm the one making unfounded claims.

For all your dismissal of 'the crowd here', you seem to have a lot of faith in something that's never been shown to work. Too bad the rest of us have to live in the real world and can't share your dream.

What are you talking about? Sales taxes are used all over.

fair tax isn't though is it :confused:

Celt, the crowd here is anything but representative of taxpaying citizens. The best they can do is attack the plan with unfounded claims against it. The fact that we (Americans for Fair Taxation) have had one successful rally after another demonstrates the grassroots support in the real world.

The country is ready to abandon the income tax and the IRS. Sadly, the power-hungry in Congress will never let that happen.

I have yet to see a "fair" tax rally around here.

Dismiss all you want. Many tax payers don't buy your BS how this will make everything better for everybody.

People like to bitch about taxes and the IRS but you don't see many rallies or and mass effort of bitching to their elected representatives for the demise of the IRS.

Taxes are a fact of life; deal with it.

Okay, Celtlund, I'll ask you the same thing I asked the lover of Patroclus:

Has this tax system ever been shown to work? Is there a single historical example of a developed nation managing to provide all the essential services of government solely through sales tax?

Texas? Florida? New Hampshire?

against. I don't see why it would be an improvement. Could someone who knows a lot about taxes explain how this would work in practice, what the effects on a normal person/business would be and why this would be an improvement?

Did you bother to go to the web site I provided in the OP and get the answers to those questions? If not, why not?

Texas? Florida? New Hampshire?

Wrong. Florida has property tax, and receives federal funding. Texas also receives federal funding and levies a wide range of taxes, including property taxes on all income producing property.

Neither of those provide the services that the federal government provides.

Nice belly flop. Try again.

EDIT: NH doesn't have a sales tax.

I think your just reading into it too far, you can't expect a thread on fair tax to be all that serious

And why not? I think any attempt to make our tax system less complex and fairer is very serious. It seems most people complain about the tax system and how unfair it is yet not one wants to consider reasonable alternatives like a fair tax or a flat tax. :(

First: Neal Boortz is an asshole who should be ostracized and shunned by the Libertarian Party for supporting the Iraq War.

Second: I would personally prefer only one tax, a small poll (head) tax that's the same for everyone. The FairTax is better than most taxes, but it's still nothing to go bananas for.

Something in the recesses of my brain tell me that a poll tax (in the US) is illegal or un-constitutional. But I have an old brain so I could be wrong.

spitting image? (http://youtube.com/watch?v=l9SIpjWesf0&feature=related)

better video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkSapMfaBBg&feature=related)

Such maligning of two of the greatest political leaders of the last century should be illegal. :D

Such maligning of two of the greatest political leaders of the last century should be illegal. :D

some of those are pretty funny, kind of like grown up muppets, but more evil.

[QUOTE=Myrmidonisia;13365938]Celt, the crowd here is anything but representative of taxpaying citizens. /QUOTE]

Unfortunately,I forgot most of the folks here are idealistic, still in school, living at home, young people who do not earn enough money to pay taxes. :eek: Shame on me for raising a subject that they don't think will ever affect their lives. :rolleyes: Shame on me. :(

We already have a 25% sales tax here. Would I suggest getting a 25% sales tax in the US? No, I would not, especially because black market wise, sales tax has a tendency to be far far worse than income. Also, I'd rather hurt the income of people who aren't creative or risk-taking enough to make their own shops than shopkeepers and small-time business men (who, at least here, have to add sales tax to their costs on top of income tax).

Obviously you did not even bother to read any of the material on the web sites I provided in the OP. People who are not "creative or risk-taking enough to make their own shops" and earn up to the poverty level will pay ZERO income tax.

My understanding of this system is:
1. No income tax.
2. High sales tax.

This does not seem to be unreasonable to me and only punishes those who choose to live lavishly. I'm not sure if it covers this, but if taxes are not be charged on essentials such as groceries then we don't fuck over the poor either.

:( Maybe you need a better understanding of the Fair Tax. Try going hear http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer and get the answers to your questions.

Did you bother to go to the web site I provided in the OP and get the answers to those questions? If not, why not?

I read the first page but didn't read any further because I thought that the site you linked to wasn't really neutral and I already heard the basics but it's not really that clear to someone who knows absolutely nothing about the american tax system. That's why I asked someone who truly knows a lot about taxes, an accountant or an economist for instance, to describe how that would affect people's daily lives.
We have sales taxes here I think. When someone wants to sell something with profit he has to pay 21% (or 6% if it's food or other essentials) to the government. But I don't see how you could run a country on such a small amount of money without reducing funding for things that I find essential. It's also fairly easy to circumvent, when you buy something from friends or anything not from a shop of course you don't pay taxes on that. I also don't see how the "below the poverty line" thing works and I'm not the only one it seems. Here everybody pays the same amount. I also don't see how this would bring less bureaucracy, it would just shift since this is the only income of the state and for that reason is very important for the government. Here we also have to pay an income tax.

I don't have anything against a clear tax code because it seems to me that all those special exceptions only benefit those who can hire an accountant (the rich).

So yeah, I'd be willing to read a neutral and simple explanation for someone who has no basic knowledge about taxes. And I would change my stance if this proved that it would be harder to escape and the economic results wouldn't be disastrous and it wouldn't be more beneficial for the rich than for the poor and that it would still give the government enough resources. (or in short, if it proved to be anything more than a libertarian circle-jerk)

Wrong. Florida has property tax, and receives federal funding. Texas also receives federal funding and levies a wide range of taxes, including property taxes on all income producing property.

Neither of those provide the services that the federal government provides.

Nice belly flop. Try again.

EDIT: NH doesn't have a sales tax.

So, you are of the school of "if it has never been tried, don't do it?" Many things have never been tried but are quite successful while other things are not. If it is tried and fails, you can always try something else and if it succeeds that's great, but to never try is to never know.

What is known is the current federal tax system is broken. If we never try to fix it will always be broken. :eek:

I don't know about anything else, but if the IRS goes, our economy will do a lot better.


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173&q=america&total=211657&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=6

I don't know about anything else, but if the IRS goes, our economy will do a lot better.


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173&q=america&total=211657&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=6

That is just so much http://www.nearlygood.com/smilies/horse.gif it doesn't deserve a comment.

That is just so much http://www.nearlygood.com/smilies/horse.gif it doesn't deserve a comment.

Instead of baseless statements, evidence.

I oppose it. Not only is there no such thing as a fair tax, but it would institutionalize welfare through the prebates and would likely be coupled with an income tax as a chance for the Feds to grab as much money as they can. No tax can be truly neutral, as all subsidize and punish certain activities with negative effects.

Definately against. A national sales tax is far too regressive, and will continue to plague the lower and middle class to a degree we haven't seen yet. I think some parts of it (e.g., abolishing income tax) are steps in the right direction, but the underpinning of the Fair Tax policy strongly suggests to me that it would be used to fund a government with the same expenditures it incurs now; which is surely why the sales tax rate is so high.

Not only that but a tax on sales as our primary means of revenue means that our government now has a vested interest in how much goods and services are being purchased by its citizens. It will give the government another avenue by which to continue the economic dicking around we've been doing for the last century.

What's particularly baffling to me is that most of us have accepted that "well, some people are going to get screwed," and the discussion has mutated into a sinister sort of "well, who do we screw the hardest?" type mentality. What about no one? I understand that life isn't exactly fair and many of you have seen me nakedly accept the fact that people are going to get screwed over terribly in the course of living on Earth, but do we have to make a policy of it at any level? I've heard people tell me that saving money in a bank account was tantamount to the physical harm of the underclass (e.g., if I have money and hoard it, that's money someone else could use to live etc etc) and people have the nerve to turn around and in the next breath tell me that if I don't give them a percentage of my earnings, I'll be thrown in a cage? What's going on here?

Celt, the crowd here is anything but representative of taxpaying citizens.

Unfortunately,I forgot most of the folks here are idealistic, still in school, living at home, young people who do not earn enough money to pay taxes. :eek: Shame on me for raising a subject that they don't think will ever affect their lives. :rolleyes: Shame on me. :(
On the other hand, there are at least two of us now. For anyone to prefer a system that takes anywhere from 5.8 to 6.5 billion hours a year and about $300
billion in compliance costs is just unimaginable. For someone to summarily dismiss a viable replacement for such a system because it doesn't penalize the high income segment of the population is equally unimaginable.

Anyhow, I'll spend my time writing to Washington in a vain effort to have a vote on this.

Obviously you did not even bother to read any of the material on the web sites I provided in the OP. People who are not "creative or risk-taking enough to make their own shops" and earn up to the poverty level will pay ZERO income tax.

Obviously, you didn't read what I wrote. I *wanted* to hurt their income *rather* than hurt the income of the people who *are willing* to take risks.

In the current situation, things are mostly fair - risk-takers and non risk-takers pay more or less the same. In a Fair Tax situation, risk-takers suffer the most.

Unfortunately,I forgot most of the folks here are idealistic, still in school, living at home, young people who do not earn enough money to pay taxes. :eek: tax-
There's plenty of taxpaying posters here too Celt.

Shame on me for raising a subject that they don't think will ever affect their lives. :rolleyes: Shame on me. :(
No, shame on you for being so patronising.

There's threads on economic policy, including discussions on tax, all the time on NS:G.

Celt, the crowd here is anything but representative of taxpaying citizens.

Unfortunately,I forgot most of the folks here are idealistic, still in school, living at home, young people who do not earn enough money to pay taxes. :eek: Shame on me for raising a subject that they don't think will ever affect their lives. :rolleyes: Shame on me. :(
But the American tax system won't ever affect the lives of many many posters here. But feel free to keep thinking that only American taxpayers can form an opinion about a proposed change to the American tax system.
Obviously you did not even bother to read any of the material on the web sites I provided in the OP. People who are not "creative or risk-taking enough to make their own shops" and earn up to the poverty level will pay ZERO income tax.

So why exactly is the IRS being done away with? Someone will have to keep track of everyone's income, how else will you know who is below the poverty level? So why not the organisation that already does it?

And I don't see what's fair about a tax that ignores one's circumstances. Is it fair that a multibillionare could feasibly pay the same amount in taxes as a family of 4 a few hundred dollars a year above the poverty line?

No. For a national sales tax to work it would have to be in the neighborhood of 50-60%, which would cause a sharp rise in homelessness among those who are currently just keeping up with their bills (a growing portion of the country.)

It would also lead to a huge black market and attendant organized crime catering to people who can't afford, or simply don't want to pay, those tax rates. Which just means a more powerful national mafia.

Which means you need more money to fun the police and FBI to try and counter all this illegal trading. Guess you'll have to raise that sales tax. Vicious Cycle, go!

I’ve been listening to the Libertarian talk show host Neal Boortz http://boortz.com/ talk about the Fair Tax for quite some time and think it is a pretty good idea. If you are not familiar with it you can get more information here http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

In any case, if it came up as a national referendum, would you vote for or against the Fair Tax?

No. For a national sales tax to work it would have to be in the neighborhood of 50-60%, which would cause a sharp rise in homelessness among those who are currently just keeping up with their bills (a growing portion of the country.)

It would also lead to a huge black market and attendant organized crime catering to people who can't afford, or simply don't want to pay, those tax rates. Which just means a more powerful national mafia.

Remember, many of our nation's founders made a lot of their money as smugglers of rum and sugar. Not because those things were illegal, but because those things had a heavy tax on them.

Obviously, you didn't read what I wrote. I *wanted* to hurt their income *rather* than hurt the income of the people who *are willing* to take risks.

In the current situation, things are mostly fair - risk-takers and non risk-takers pay more or less the same. In a Fair Tax situation, risk-takers suffer the most.

Risk takers are supposed to suffer the most. That's what risk is. If you make it so that risk takers get the biggest benefit from the system then the behaviors that risk-takers used to engage in are no longer risky, thus they are no longer risk-takers. Thus, by your own argument, they do not deserve the system's protection.

Celt, the crowd here is anything but representative of taxpaying citizens.

Unfortunately,I forgot most of the folks here are idealistic, still in school, living at home, young people who do not earn enough money to pay taxes. :eek: Shame on me for raising a subject that they don't think will ever affect their lives. :rolleyes: Shame on me. :(

I know little to nothing about any of this. But, seriously, going aroud shouting "stupid stupidypants!" at those who don't support you is a little silly. (This is derected at both posts I quoted)

Risk takers are supposed to suffer the most. That's what risk is. If you make it so that risk takers get the biggest benefit from the system then the behaviors that risk-takers used to engage in are no longer risky, thus they are no longer risk-takers. Thus, by your own argument, they do not deserve the system's protection.

No, because starting up a new business or opening a shop is always a risk. Why then would you want to add to the risk? I'm not advocating removing any risk from that group. I am advocating not giving them additional risks.

Sales tax adds risks to an already risky venture. It makes it less likely for people to strike up as independent workers, starting their own businesses or opening their own shops. That's a win-lose situation.

Income tax adds no risk to people who work, but on the contrary, gives them an incentive to open up their own business. That's win-win situation. If you do earn enough money as a business owner to pay income tax, then you're already out of the red. You always pay sales tax, red or not, as a business. Unless, of course, businesses would also get the same rebates as people and then it gets really complicated.

Remember, this is a federal sales tax, so it is a federal rebate. Now, if you just say 10k dollars, people in New York will not be equal to people in California. If you try to make it equal, then it becomes far more expensive to run this system. If you begin to include businesses as well as every single household in it, bye-bye efficiency. What's more is that if you include both, the government will run at a loss, as it rebates items twice - once for the buyer and once for the seller.

That's not optimal at all.

Definately against. A national sales tax is far too regressive, and will continue to plague the lower and middle class to a degree we haven't seen yet. I think some parts of it (e.g., abolishing income tax) are steps in the right direction, but the underpinning of the Fair Tax policy strongly suggests to me that it would be used to fund a government with the same expenditures it incurs now; which is surely why the sales tax rate is so high.



Hey lurker! :)

One thing to consider is what it would mean at the state level. When the ebil feds are reduced it will probably mean the states will have to cover more when means more property tax and or state taxes and of course the increase on the sales tax. So I really wonder how much will really end up in savings for me?

How much would my purchasing power be affected? How much would prices increase due to the new taxes and how much would they increase now that business knows we all have money?

The possibility for mass price increases are there. An anecdotal observation was the elimination of a large amount of sales prices after Christmas. Business knew we had the gift cards waiting to be spent.

Poverty level is frequently mentioned and that will be a small segment due to the income levels for which are declared poverty level. Where I live, you would be homeless as a mediocre apartment runs about $1600+

It appears there is a bit of faith that everybody will see an improvement. There is only a promise but it doesn't explain what is lost or could be lost(kind of expected because they want it passed and they would not post con information).

I used their calculator and the savings promised was about 18 grand. How much of that will I really keep? If the fed tax is trashed what does that mean for social security? They promise full funding.

No. For a national sales tax to work it would have to be in the neighborhood of 50-60%, which would cause a sharp rise in homelessness among those who are currently just keeping up with their bills (a growing portion of the country.)And then it would tax them (the homeless) afterwards!

For grins I did some extra reading on that site:

Is the Fair Tax fair?

Yes, the FairTax is fair, and in fact, much fairer than the income tax. Wealthy people spend more money than other individuals. They buy expensive cars, big houses, and yachts. They buy filet mignon instead of hamburger, fine wine instead of beer, designer dresses, and expensive jewelry. The FairTax taxes them on these purchases.

I just loved that description!

If, however, they use their money to build job-creating factories, finance research and development to create new products, or fund charitable activities (all of which help improve the standard of living of others), then those activities are not taxed.

Ok how many factories are going to be created these days especially when considering cost of labor in China?

Ok How are you going to police claims of research, etc.? Are we going to have a force to audit?

For some reason I don't see companies significantly increase charity donations.

What about the home mortgage deduction?

The FairTax has positive effects on residential real estate far beyond this narrow question. Today’s homeowners, if they itemize (and 70 percent do not), pay their interest with post-Social Security/pre-income tax dollars. They then pay their principal with post-SS/post-income tax dollars. Those who do not itemize get no advantages at all. Under the FairTax, all homeowners make their entire house payment with pre-tax dollars.

With the FairTax, mortgage interest rates fall by about 25 percent (about 1.75 points) as bank overhead falls; this is a huge savings for consumers. For example, on a $150,000, thirty-year home mortgage at an interest rate of 7.00 percent, the monthly mortgage payment is $999.12 for principal and interest. On that same mortgage at a 5.25 percent interest rate, the monthly payment is $830.01. Over 30 years, the 1.75-percent decrease in interest rates in this instance results in a $60,879 cost savings to the consumer. Finally, first-time buyers save for that down payment much faster, as savings are not taxed.


Ok exlcuding the current subprime crap. How many people believe the banks are going to go "Hey our expenses dropped 25%! Let's return that to the home loans! Hey you mortgage person! We are going to drop your interest rates!

How many think they will pocket most of the savings?

What about the 16th Amendment?

It is not the intention of this plan, or the desire of the American people, to end up with both a federal income tax and a federal sales tax. The objective is to ensure that one is replaced by the other, not added on top of the other. By repealing the 16th Amendment, we close the door on an income tax for generations to come.


:D Constitutional amendments are easy to do right?

Fair tax, a cute euphemism for regressive taxation.

Ok exlcuding the current subprime crap. How many people believe the banks are going to go "Hey our expenses dropped 25%! Let's return that to the home loans! Hey you mortgage person! We are going to drop your interest rates!

How many think they will pocket most of the savings?



all i know is that the more expenditures you exempt from sales tax, the higher the sales tax has to be on the things you dont exempt.

all i know is that the more expenditures you exempt from sales tax, the higher the sales tax has to be on the things you dont exempt.

Exactly. A gigantic one seems to be the exemptions for business. Guess he gets to make up the shortfall.

I also have not found discussions about what it will mean for other areas such as property tax.

I suspect if they somehow got the "fair" tax system implemented; the next thing on the chopping blocks would be a chunk of the social programs.

I am not going to worry as I think they don't have a hope in hell.

Exactly. A gigantic one seems to be the exemptions for business. Guess he gets to make up the shortfall.

I also have not found discussions about what it will mean for other areas such as property tax.

I suspect if they somehow got the "fair" tax system implemented; the next thing on the chopping blocks would be a chunk of the social programs.

I am not going to worry as I think they don't have a hope in hell.

of course its hopeless.

the federal government NEVER gives up a tax and this idea has it giving up dozens.

Against, because coming from Nevada (A state that funds itself mainly through sales taxes, high sales taxes) I've seen the boom and bust cycle that comes with hitching yourself to people's spending. Two years ago everyone was coming to Vegas and Nevada was looking really good in terms of monies coming in. Thanks to the sub-prime crisis and what looks to be a looming recession, Nevada has not taken in the money that it thought it would and the state is having to call for a 5 to 15% across the board cut. Health, safety, education, everything. The university I went to is now delaying opening of its new library because of this.

Furthermore, no one on the fair tax side has ever told me what will happen to state sales taxes. Many states or counties produce a good chunk of revenue through them. Many economists (while laughing at the fair tax) have said that in order to fund the US government, the tax would be more akin to 50%, not the 25% as quoted, but even if it WAS 25% national, you'd still have to add in the locals as well. Would you be willing to see a 30+% increase on your food bill? And if the amount would have to be 50%, well then, that's real money out of your pocket, far in excess of what the IRS takes out.

Another reason is that fair tax people also never bother to tell me what happens when we might want to go to war, or if another Hurricane Katrina comes down the pike. If we cannot as a nation are hitched to sales taxes and people ain't buying, what then? We could print money of course, but the US tried that way at the beginning when the only taxes that it charged were duties and in an effort to pay for the Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress just kept printing paper money, and more paper money, and even more till it was worthless. Is THAT what the fair taxers are for?

People usually get the same income per year, but you cannot make them go out and spend more when the state needs money for things like natural disasters or war.

Oh, and Myrmidonisia and Celtlund, I've been paying taxes since I was 16 and have been out of my parents house for over a decade, drop the "They live with mommie and daddy" crap.

Against.

I like the income tax, especially when they get it right and have a progressive system.

The more someone makes, the more they should be taxed, to promote some semblance of economic equality.
Of course I also support 0 tax for those who make less than 5,000 annually, and less than 10% for those who make less than 20,000 and tax cuts for those who donate to charity.