Only read what was posted...which is a poor choice
Fair Tax?
- Thread starter Chris0nllyn
- Start date
Only read what was posted...which is a poor choice
mAlice
professional daydreamer
You really should read the link. There's a lot of information there.
Does that really require an answer?
mAlice
professional daydreamer
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
I thought welfare was for the less fortunate, not taxes.
So you think this makes it nuetral? Up to the poverty level?
Everyone over the poverty level will then pay 23% tax on everything they purchase. Since the majority of income at the lower levels is spent on purchases, these folks will go from a 10-15% income tax to a 23% consumption tax...yeah...that's "fair".
Sorry paying a tax on purchases is a sales tax...doesn't get more basic than the defintion.
ylexot
Super Genius
If you are truly interested in how it works, there's a book about it (you can even check out the ebook from the library...that's what I did). The book addresses all of these issues and much more. Much of the information is on the website, but reading the book is probably the easier way to go.
A Progressive tax structure has become nothing but a huge stack of paper that is hard to decifer, inefficient, and full of loop holes catered to the rich, and certain companies. Fair Tax is NOT a VAT. there is a prebate provision that would give a tax allowance to low income families so they can pay for necessities.
Couple that with Gary Johnson's pledge to veto anything that pushes govt. spending above what they make, and I'd say it's an idea that could very well work. It's obviously a better idea than what we've been dealing with.
Those are ridiculous points. It is a tax on consumption…the prebate does not change that and does not change the fact that it is extremely regressive.
Assuming your veto comment relates to Federal Govt income vs spending (ie mandating/forcing a balanced budget)…that is simply stupid…no rational economist would ever force a balanced budget on a Federal Govt. Of course this plays well to the masses.
As opposed to now? We have U.S. corporations paying a very high rate of taxes as compared to their counterparts overseas. However, given the wide array of credits, deductions and subsidies (i.e. “loopholes”), many companies actually pay a low rate — or no tax at all. Hell, Warren Buffet pays less in taxes than his secretary. We've got congressmen giving out to their favored constituents. For example, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, of Kentucky, is making noise about keeping the tax credit for horses in Kentucky. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., continues to support a credit that benefits the Samuel Adams Brewery in Boston.
Your point is irrelevant. Loopholes can be closed without this silly Fair Tax. The current system didn’t start with all the loopholes we have now.
So, tax prep firms somehow account for the majority of workers? Doubt it. Will you say the poor IRS workers will make the UE rate go up also when they lose their job? When a company doesn't have to pay taxes, they have more money, more money means more employees. Add to that, reform of current, rediculous regulations, and legislation, and companies could actually get going.
Again your point is irrelevant. Companies right now are flush with cash. Why aren’t they hiring, because we have a DEMAND PROBLEM!!! We have exactly the problem we should be having after a massive financial crisis caused by a credit event. You are applying the wrong solution to the wrong problem.
Just look at what's going on it Puerto Rico. Fortuno came in, vut his own pay, slahed the size of the govt., reformed the revenue code to include a 50% tax cut for individuals and 30% for businesses, beginning with a 7–14% tax cut for individuals and a 7% tax cut for businesses effective during tax year 2010. May of 2010, PR's UE rate was over 16%. Now, just 2 years later, it's already down to 13.7%. Is it what the people wanted? Hell no, there was rioting, teachers walked out, etc., but what ended up happening? Fiscal year 2009-10 ended with a $2 billion structural deficit, followed by a $1 billion structural deficit in 2010-11, $610 million in fiscal year 2011-12, $332.7 million in 2012-13, with a goal of achieving a structurally balanced budget by July 1, 2013.
Puerto Rico? Are you kidding? What in the world does the Puerto Rican economy have to do with ours?
What does Puerto Rico produce? What is their main industry? I’d bet it is tourism based mainly on US visitors and exports of goods to the US. If this is true, your example is irrelevant, as the recovering US economy likely has more to do with Puerto Rican recovery than Puerto Rican tax changes.
In case you didn’t notice, our unemployment rate has fallen by 1.9% points since its high in 2009. With all that you noted Puerto Rico did, their rate fell by only 2.3%.
Couple that with Gary Johnson's pledge to veto anything that pushes govt. spending above what they make, and I'd say it's an idea that could very well work. It's obviously a better idea than what we've been dealing with.
Those are ridiculous points. It is a tax on consumption…the prebate does not change that and does not change the fact that it is extremely regressive.
Assuming your veto comment relates to Federal Govt income vs spending (ie mandating/forcing a balanced budget)…that is simply stupid…no rational economist would ever force a balanced budget on a Federal Govt. Of course this plays well to the masses.
As opposed to now? We have U.S. corporations paying a very high rate of taxes as compared to their counterparts overseas. However, given the wide array of credits, deductions and subsidies (i.e. “loopholes”), many companies actually pay a low rate — or no tax at all. Hell, Warren Buffet pays less in taxes than his secretary. We've got congressmen giving out to their favored constituents. For example, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, of Kentucky, is making noise about keeping the tax credit for horses in Kentucky. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., continues to support a credit that benefits the Samuel Adams Brewery in Boston.
Your point is irrelevant. Loopholes can be closed without this silly Fair Tax. The current system didn’t start with all the loopholes we have now.
So, tax prep firms somehow account for the majority of workers? Doubt it. Will you say the poor IRS workers will make the UE rate go up also when they lose their job? When a company doesn't have to pay taxes, they have more money, more money means more employees. Add to that, reform of current, rediculous regulations, and legislation, and companies could actually get going.
Again your point is irrelevant. Companies right now are flush with cash. Why aren’t they hiring, because we have a DEMAND PROBLEM!!! We have exactly the problem we should be having after a massive financial crisis caused by a credit event. You are applying the wrong solution to the wrong problem.
Just look at what's going on it Puerto Rico. Fortuno came in, vut his own pay, slahed the size of the govt., reformed the revenue code to include a 50% tax cut for individuals and 30% for businesses, beginning with a 7–14% tax cut for individuals and a 7% tax cut for businesses effective during tax year 2010. May of 2010, PR's UE rate was over 16%. Now, just 2 years later, it's already down to 13.7%. Is it what the people wanted? Hell no, there was rioting, teachers walked out, etc., but what ended up happening? Fiscal year 2009-10 ended with a $2 billion structural deficit, followed by a $1 billion structural deficit in 2010-11, $610 million in fiscal year 2011-12, $332.7 million in 2012-13, with a goal of achieving a structurally balanced budget by July 1, 2013.
Puerto Rico? Are you kidding? What in the world does the Puerto Rican economy have to do with ours?
What does Puerto Rico produce? What is their main industry? I’d bet it is tourism based mainly on US visitors and exports of goods to the US. If this is true, your example is irrelevant, as the recovering US economy likely has more to do with Puerto Rican recovery than Puerto Rican tax changes.
In case you didn’t notice, our unemployment rate has fallen by 1.9% points since its high in 2009. With all that you noted Puerto Rico did, their rate fell by only 2.3%.
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
Key words, you pay taxes on what you buy. They aren't taxing you based on what you earn (tax brackets). I think it's pretty fair making everyone pay the same amount, no matter their income.
Lowest income tax bracket is 15%, plus the 7.65% employee payroll tax = 22.65% . Not to mention Medicare/Social Security which are triple taxed. 1) when payroll taxes are initially withheld; 2) when those withheld payroll taxes are counted as part of the taxable base for income tax purposes; and 3) when the promised benefits are finally received.
If you believe taxes are for govt. income, than why not tax consumption. Surely you realize that is a much more stable revenue source than taxing income.
FromTexas
This Space for Rent
Family dependents don't only have to be children. Again, up to a maximum.
This could be Granny Smith who is disabled and can barely get by on her social security income; therefore, you can take her in and cover more than 50% of her costs and receive a deduction for doing it.
In the end, the government will likely save well more from that action than it loses in the deduction. While a deduction will not be the sole motivator for someone to take care of Granny, it fits because Granny would have had her own value for deduction if she was not being supported.
Also, children are non-earning individuals who should turn into future earning potential while costing income today. We should put a limit to not influence a new form of tax dodging.
FromTexas
This Space for Rent
Really? Would you agree that middle income and lower income earners are more likely to use credit to make purchases, above their take home income, than are the more affluent?
Also, consumption more stable than income? Really? Thats a stretch. When liquidity dries up and we go through a crunch like now, what do you think people stop doing? When jobs are lost and people get unemployment or welfare, are we taxing that? That is part of what keeps consumption going in the bad times.
Why not just advocate a flatter tax and keep your same solution - ease of taxing without all the loopholes - without bringing consumer choice - of which, the consumers who use most their income are middle to lower. The prebate won't rectify the discrepancy once you get beyond lower middle incomes.
DipStick
Keep Calm and Don't Care!
Not a flat tax supporter of any kind, but I do embrace the idea of a simpler tax code.
And 23% sounds really high, especially once you add Maryland's six percent on top of it. 29%
I have other "questions" about all this flat tax business.
But, the tax code does need to be simpler. We all have to pay taxes. You shouldn't have to be an arithmetic major or a rocket scientist to figure it out.
And 23% sounds really high, especially once you add Maryland's six percent on top of it. 29%
I have other "questions" about all this flat tax business.
But, the tax code does need to be simpler. We all have to pay taxes. You shouldn't have to be an arithmetic major or a rocket scientist to figure it out.
Rommey
Well-Known Member
Fair tax, not flat taxNot a flat tax supporter of any kind, but I do embrace the idea of a simpler tax code.
And 23% sounds really high, especially once you add Maryland's six percent on top of it. 29%
I have other "questions" about all this flat tax business.
But, the tax code does need to be simpler. We all have to pay taxes. You shouldn't have to be an arithmetic major or a rocket scientist to figure it out.
I had to skim the thread. 
Unfortunately, I don't have the hours in my day to spend reading posts as long as my arm.
However, as some of the "old timers" around here know, I've been a Fair Tax supporter since the late 90's when I first heard about it on Neal Boortz' radio program. He has a talk show out of Atlanta, GA and I would catch it on the local talk radio show in Jacksonville, FL.
The website FairTax.org is very comprehensive and can answer probably 99% of the questions/objections brought up here. Their research is extensive. View Our Research - Americans For Fair Taxation
Any one of us who are supporters can answer, debate or rebut any of the objections of some of the posters. But if they won't do their own research, then there's no point in any discussion, because they will never understand The Fair Tax.
Unfortunately, I don't have the hours in my day to spend reading posts as long as my arm. However, as some of the "old timers" around here know, I've been a Fair Tax supporter since the late 90's when I first heard about it on Neal Boortz' radio program. He has a talk show out of Atlanta, GA and I would catch it on the local talk radio show in Jacksonville, FL.
The website FairTax.org is very comprehensive and can answer probably 99% of the questions/objections brought up here. Their research is extensive. View Our Research - Americans For Fair Taxation
Any one of us who are supporters can answer, debate or rebut any of the objections of some of the posters. But if they won't do their own research, then there's no point in any discussion, because they will never understand The Fair Tax.
DipStick
Keep Calm and Don't Care!
I had to skim the thread.
However, as some of the "old timers" around here know, I've been a Fair Tax supporter since the late 90's when I first heard about it on Neal Boortz' radio program. He has a talk show out of Atlanta, GA and I would catch it on the local talk radio show in Jacksonville, FL.
The website FairTax.org is very comprehensive and can answer probably 99% of the questions/objections brought up here. Their research is extensive. View Our Research - Americans For Fair Taxation
Any one of us who are supporters can answer, debate or rebut any of the objections of some of the posters. But if they won't do their own research, then there's no point in any discussion, because they will never understand The Fair Tax.
The problem is they're essentially lobbyists, and you can't trust all their statements.
struggler44
A Salute to all on Watch
Not a flat tax supporter of any kind, but I do embrace the idea of a simpler tax code.
And 23% sounds really high, especially once you add Maryland's six percent on top of it. 29%
I have other "questions" about all this flat tax business.
But, the tax code does need to be simpler. We all have to pay taxes. You shouldn't have to be an arithmetic major or a rocket scientist to figure it out.
Would 6% be all that Md would want? That's just our sales tax but what about out other taxes(Income, property and everything else they have their hands in)? Can't see the states abandoning their tax codes just because the feds might
DipStick
Keep Calm and Don't Care!
Yep. I don't care how you spin the math, this "FAIR Tax" is regressive and a huge tax increase for the poor and a huge tax cut for the wealthy.
struggler44
A Salute to all on Watch
DipStick
Keep Calm and Don't Care!
Gotta luv ya, Dem through and through...
I'm an Independent.
Even Adam Smith supported a progressive tax structure.