Fair Tax Act of 2009

[penguinz]

To promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.


http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h25/show

[Garcia Bronco]

Not one Democrat amongst the bill sponsers.

[jiveturkey]

Why didn't they try and pull this off when George W was in office? The Republicans talk a big game but don't even attempt theses difficult tasks when the opportunities present themselves.

And then raise hell when a Democrat doesn't do it for them???

[Garcia Bronco]

Why didn't they try and pull this off when George W was in office? The Republicans talk a big game but don't even attempt theses difficult tasks when the opportunities present themselves.

And then raise hell when a Democrat doesn't do it for them???

This resolution under various forms have been present several times over the past decade. this isn't new at all.

Again, not one democrat sponsers this bill.

[talastan]

It seems like common sense to me, why would anyone not want this? :shrug:

[Simplex3]

Simple. It removes the government's power to coerce your behavior by telling you what you will or won't get tax breaks for.

[Garcia Bronco]

Simple. It removes the government's power to coerce your behavior by telling you what you will or won't get tax breaks for.

Exactly

[NickAthanFan]

If one really wanted to bring the economy back in a big way this is it. That's why it won't happen.

[Simplex3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax
Bill Archer, former head of the House Ways and Means Committee, asked Princeton University Econometrics to survey 500 European and Asian companies regarding the effect on their business decisions if the United States enacted the FairTax. 400 of those companies stated they would build their next plant in the United States, and 100 companies said they would move their corporate headquarters to the United States.

Certainly that wouldn't create any new jobs. Bearing in mind that was a survey of only 500 companies.

[Dr. Van Halen]

*I have always associated people pushing the flat tax/no tax plans with mind-numbingly wealthy gents who are tired of paying large amounts in taxes. (Forbes, etc.)

*I have always associated politicians pushing the flat tax/no tax plans with politicians who receive very large amounts of money for campaigns from mind-numbingly wealthy gents who are tired of paying large amounts in taxes.

*I have always associated non-rich types who push the flat tax/no tax plans with pawns who have been duped by the rich.

Explain why I am wrong in my assumptions.

[Simplex3]

*I have always associated people pushing the flat tax/no tax plans with mind-numbingly wealthy gents who are tired of paying large amounts in taxes. (Forbes, etc.)

*I have always associated politicians pushing the flat tax/no tax plans with politicians who receive very large amounts of money for campaigns from mind-numbingly wealthy gents who are tired of paying large amounts in taxes.

*I have always associated non-rich types who push the flat tax/no tax plans with pawns who have been duped by the rich.

Explain why I am wrong in my assumptions.

Yeah, having lots of companies from all over the world opening operations in the US and having to fight for talent would suck for everyone. Being able to keep what you earned would blow. Not having to ever file taxes would be the pinnacle of suck.

[Dr. Van Halen]

Yeah, having lots of companies from all over the world opening operations in the US and having to fight for talent would suck for everyone. Being able to keep what you earned would blow. Not having to ever file taxes would be the pinnacle of suck.

I apologize if what I wrote came off as sarcastic. I'm genuinely curious. I consider myself a fiscally-conservative/moderate, socially-moderate/liberal Republican, and I have never understood the No Tax wing of the party. I associate it with billionaires like Forbes who were obviously just out for themselves and their yacht-swilling buddies.

Would this really solve our current crisis? Wouldn't creating a large new tax on spending curb spending? Wouldn't my "kept earnings" disappear with the increased cost of goods? Is the inconvenience of filing taxes really a justification for dismantling our tax system?

[Simplex3]

I apologize if what I wrote came off as sarcastic. I'm genuinely curious. I consider myself a fiscally-conservative/moderate, socially-moderate/liberal Republican, and I have never understood the No Tax wing of the party. I associate it with billionaires like Forbes who were obviously just out for themselves and their yacht-swilling buddies.

Would this really solve our current crisis? Wouldn't creating a large new tax on spending curb spending? Wouldn't my "kept earnings" disappear with the increased cost of goods? Is the inconvenience of filing taxes really a justification for dismantling our tax system?

Here's the basics. It would remove all current federal payroll taxes. FICA, Social Security, all of it. It would also remove all business taxes, capital gains taxes, pretty much everything. Including of the decreased costs of collecting the taxes (no more need for the IRS) estimates are that the federal retail sales tax percentage would be 23%. Like me, you probably look at that number and crap your pants.

However, embedded in the current cost of goods is about 22% to cover all of the corporate taxes. So the real price of the goods as you walk out the store wouldn't change much. Also, the billions of dollars a year we spend getting our taxes done would be dollars we could spend doing or buying something else. Will this suck in the near term for IRS employees and my tax accountant? Yeah, it will.

The Fair Tax bill also includes what it calls a "pre-bate". Basically every month the government writes a check to every man, woman, and child in the country for the amount of money they will spend in federal taxes for purchasing the necessities of life for the upcoming month. Everyone gets the same check regardless of what they make, so administration is cheap. This removes any tax burden whatsoever on the poorest Americans.

Will it be good for the rich? Yes. It would also be great for me. I have a hard time figuring out who this is bad for unless you're in the government.

[MagicHef]

Will it be good for the rich? Yes. It would also be great for me. I have a hard time figuring out who this is bad for unless you're in the government.

It'd be pretty bad for H&R Block.

[Simplex3]

It'd be pretty bad for H&R Block.

The company, yes. I admitted the tax industry would be destroyed. I don't see that as a bad thing.


Their employees might just have to be bid for by the 500 European and Asian companies that would be trying to open up in the US.

[MagicHef]

Yes. Sorry for the sarcasm.

[Jenson71]

The Fair Tax bill also includes what it calls a "pre-bate". Basically every month the government writes a check to every man, woman, and child in the country for the amount of money they will spend in federal taxes for purchasing the necessities of life for the upcoming month. Everyone gets the same check regardless of what they make, so administration is cheap. This removes any tax burden whatsoever on the poorest Americans.

Who pays for that?

[MagicHef]

Who pays for that?

I'm not an expert, but I imagine it would be built into the 23% rate. As in, if the pre-bate didn't exist, the tax rate may only be 20%, or something like that.

[FishingRod]

This will never happen. Our elected officials would have to operate in the open. They would have great difficultly in stealing money from one account to pay off another. How could we blame rich people for not paying their share? Congress might have to spend in relation to the taxes coming in each year. Even if it did pass we would run into a "emergency" that would require a different tax temporarily. For example of a temporary income tax the UK parliament has to vote each and to extend for one more year the income tax temporarily imposed originally to help fund WWII.

[talastan]

I support it because of people like Geitner, as well as illegal immigrants, and anyone else who doesn't pay their taxes. Kinda hard to dodge taxes if you have to purchase anything. :thumb:

[Taco John]

*I have always associated people pushing the flat tax/no tax plans with mind-numbingly wealthy gents who are tired of paying large amounts in taxes. (Forbes, etc.)

*I have always associated politicians pushing the flat tax/no tax plans with politicians who receive very large amounts of money for campaigns from mind-numbingly wealthy gents who are tired of paying large amounts in taxes.

*I have always associated non-rich types who push the flat tax/no tax plans with pawns who have been duped by the rich.

Explain why I am wrong in my assumptions.



You're wrong because the principle of being able to keep the money you earn is not one owned by the rich, but by the moral.

[J Diddy]

You're wrong because the principle of being able to keep the money you earn is not one owned by the rich, but by the moral.

So you're saying it's immoral to give away the money you earn?

[Dr. Van Halen]

You're wrong because the principle of being able to keep the money you earn is not one owned by the rich, but by the moral.

You're wrong because that's silly. There is no Universal Absolute Truth that prohibits taxation.

Edit: Not to be disrespectful. I admire the snot out of everyone on this forum.

[Taco John]

So you're saying it's immoral to give away the money you earn?


No. I'm saying it's immoral for the government to see the money that I earn as the money that they have first (or last) rights to. It's mine. If they want to tax me for consumption based on the fact that they're providing the net in which that transaction takes place, I'm ok with that. But income tax is a fundamentally immoral tax imposed by tyrants throughout history. The government should not have any claim to money made on the back of my labor. I worked for it. I earned it. It's mine. It does not belong to society.

When the government says you earned it, but owe us a quarter for every dollar you make, it is the moral equivalent of the government saying "you are 25% owned by us," "you are 25% our slave."

[Taco John]

You're wrong because that's silly.

Why is it silly for people to have the first and last claim to the wages that they earn?

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Why didn't they try and pull this off when George W was in office? The Republicans talk a big game but don't even attempt theses difficult tasks when the opportunities present themselves.

And then raise hell when a Democrat doesn't do it for them???

Right when you finished the first sentence of your statement I can think of no less than 6 posters in this forum that did the following;

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/4/17/lalalalalaica128529515546562500.jpg

[Dr. Van Halen]

Why is it silly for people to have the first and last claim to the wages that they earn?

It's silly because you are making the argument on the moral ground. As I said, unfortunately, there is no Universal Absolute Truth that prohibits taxation.

The net you refer to in the above post exists just as much in the transaction where your employer pays you for the services you provide.

[Taco John]

It's silly because you are making the argument on the moral ground. As I said, unfortunately, there is no Universal Absolute Truth that prohibits taxation.

Slavery of any form is immoral. If government makes claims to my labor or the money generated from it, they are making a claim on my person. This is immoral.


The net you refer to in the above post exists just as much in the transaction where your employer pays you for the services you provide.

Not in a free country.

And I ask you again, why is it silly for people to have the first and last claim to the wages that they earn?

[Dr. Van Halen]

Slavery of any form is immoral. If government makes claims to my labor or the money generated from it, they are making a claim on my person. This is immoral.

No, they are making a claim on your money. It stinks, but it's a far cry from slavery. And not immoral.


Not in a free country.

And I ask you again, why is it silly for people to have the first and last claim to the wages that they earn?

I tried to answer your question by saying that "the net you refer to in the above post exists just as much in the transaction where your employer pays you for the services you provide."

[Taco John]

No, they are making a claim on your money.


I know. That's what I said. They are making a claim on my money - which is an expression of my labor. I work therefore I earn.

And no, it's not a far cry from slavery in principle. Slavery: The institution or social practice of owning human beings as property. By making a claim on my labor, the government claims a percentage of me as a person. This is immoral. The government has not right to own me, nor my labor, nor the expression of that labor just for the fact that it was worked.

[J Diddy]

Slavery of any form is immoral. If government makes claims to my labor or the money generated from it, they are making a claim on my person. This is immoral.




Not in a free country.

And I ask you again, why is it silly for people to have the first and last claim to the wages that they earn?

I love how you compare this to slavery. I wish we had a time machine and could go back pre-civil war and ask any slave if they felt being compensated for their work and having to pay taxes was slavery.

Most slaves were uneducated, but I doubt even that would hold them back from thinking that was a stupid idea

[J Diddy]

I know. That's what I said. They are making a claim on my money - which is an expression of my labor. I work therefore I earn.

And no, it's not a far cry from slavery. Slavery: The institution or social practice of owning human beings as property. By making a claim on my labor, the government claims a percentage of me as a person. This is immoral. The government has not right to own me, nor my labor, nor the expression of that labor just for the fact that it was worked.


So are you implying we should just abolish all taxes? Because, it appears to me, according to your way of putting two and two together any taxation would result in them "owning you"

[Dr. Van Halen]

I know. That's what I said. They are making a claim on my money - which is an expression of my labor. I work therefore I earn.

And no, it's not a far cry from slavery in principle. Slavery: The institution or social practice of owning human beings as property. By making a claim on my labor, the government claims a percentage of me as a person. This is immoral. The government has not right to own me, nor my labor, nor the expression of that labor just for the fact that it was worked.

Your money is the result of the financial transaction between you and your employer. That transaction is in no part the essence of your humanity.

[Taco John]

I love how you compare this to slavery. I wish we had a time machine and could go back pre-civil war and ask any slave if they felt being compensated for their work and having to pay taxes was slavery.


That wouldn't change the principle whatsoever. Whether its the government making claim to your labor, or a slave master making claim to the labor of his slaves, it's still the same fundamental thing: the practice of owning human beings as property.

Of course government tries to paint paying income taxes as a voluntary exchange, but watch what happens if you refuse to pay. You'll find out quite forcefully that you are, indeed, owned property.

[Taco John]

Your money is the result of the financial transaction between you and your employer. That transaction is in no part the essence of your humanity.


You're word play isn't very convincing.

My money is the expression of my labor. I work, therefor I earn.

Work = Money

The transaction is not the "essence of my humanity." I never said that. I'm not so wreckless with my words as that. The transaction is the product of the agreement that I've made with an employer to echange my time and effort (my labor) for dollars.

In a moral society, I would own those dollars outright. In an immoral society, I am granted "my cut" of those dollars after the government has taken what they consider to be their cut. The more I work, and the more I earn, the larger the cut gets taken out of me. So long as they get their cut, they allow me to excersize freedom. If they don't get their cut, my freedom is forfeit.

[ClevelandBronco]

Slavery of any form is immoral. If government makes claims to my labor or the money generated from it, they are making a claim on my person. This is immoral.

No, they are making a claim on your money. It stinks, but it's a far cry from slavery.And not immoral.

You are the problem, Mr. Dr. Van Halen.

[ClevelandBronco]

BTW: I'm a good bit of the problem as well, but not nearly as much as you are.

[InChiefsHell]

I'm agreeing with the Donk fan (Taco)...and I don't even feel bad about it...what does that mean??

[Dr. Van Halen]

That wouldn't change the principle whatsoever. Whether its the government making claim to your labor, or a slave master making claim to the labor of his slaves, it's still the same fundamental thing: the practice of owning human beings as property.

Of course government tries to paint paying income taxes as a voluntary exchange, but watch what happens if you refuse to pay. You'll find out quite forcefully that you are, indeed, owned property.

I admire much of what you say, but I think this notion is ridiculous.

The government is giving you something in return for your tax money. If nothing else, the "net" that you said existed when sales taxes are collected.

The government, by the way, does not pretend income taxes are voluntary.

[J Diddy]

That wouldn't change the principle whatsoever. Whether its the government making claim to your labor, or a slave master making claim to the labor of his slaves, it's still the same fundamental thing: the practice of owning human beings as property.

Of course government tries to paint paying income taxes as a voluntary exchange, but watch what happens if you refuse to pay. You'll find out quite forcefully that you are, indeed, owned property.

No I equate it more to a club. Pay your dues or leave the club. They don't stop you from leaving.

[Taco John]

The government, by the way, does not pretend income taxes are voluntary.

Wanna bet?


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/R7mRSI8yWwg&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/R7mRSI8yWwg&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Dr. Van Halen]

You're word play isn't very convincing.

My money is the expression of my labor. I work, therefor I earn.

Work = Money

No, work does not equal money. Money is the result of work.

The transaction is not the "essence of my humanity." I never said that. I'm not so wreckless with my words as that. The transaction is the product of the agreement that I've made with an employer to echange my time and effort (my labor) for dollars.

Well, you are reckless enough with your words that you misspelled the word as "wreckless." :) If the transaction is not in any way the essence of your humanity then how does the government own you as a slave?

In a moral society, I would own those dollars outright. In an immoral society, I am granted "my cut" of those dollars after the government has taken what they consider to be their cut. The more I work, and the more I earn, the larger the cut gets taken out of me. So long as they get their cut, they allow me to excersize freedom. If they don't get their cut, my freedom is forfeit.

No, in a moral society you have to pay for your share for the services and protections the government provides for you. I don't like throwing around concepts like The Social Contract, but that is, I suppose, what is behind the idea of taxation.

Alas, I must leave the discussion for now.

[orange]

Wanna bet?


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/R7mRSI8yWwg&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/R7mRSI8yWwg&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

The Law: The word “voluntary,” as used in Flora and in IRS publications, refers to our system of allowing taxpayers initially to determine the correct amount of tax and complete the appropriate returns, rather than have the government determine tax for them from the outset. The requirement to file an income tax return is not voluntary and is clearly set forth in sections 6011(a), 6012(a), et seq., and 6072(a). See also Treas. Reg. § 1.6011‑1(a).

http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id=159932,00.html#_Toc153765502

[Dave Lane]

Not one Democrat amongst the bill sponsers.

Only the Nazi Zombies from Call of Duty signed it I believe

[NickAthanFan]

People think we're not slaves to the government yet the government decides how much of our money we take, and we have no say. They decide what to do with our money, and who to give it to. They choose when they get it, how we are to pay it, and as we are seeing now in KS and CA they can decide not to give us what we overpaid them.

We are slaves.

[Simplex3]

Regardless of the slave argument, I haven't heard a single cogent argument against the Fair Tax yet.

Oh, I've heard lots of arguments. Every single one of them either ignores or distorts part of the bill.

[Taco John]

The Law: The word “voluntary,” as used in Flora and in IRS publications, refers to our system of allowing taxpayers initially to determine the correct amount of tax and complete the appropriate returns, rather than have the government determine tax for them from the outset. The requirement to file an income tax return is not voluntary and is clearly set forth in sections 6011(a), 6012(a), et seq., and 6072(a). See also Treas. Reg. § 1.6011‑1(a).

http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id=159932,00.html#_Toc153765502


Orwellian isn't it?

War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength... and voluntary is forced.

[NickAthanFan]

Regardless of the slave argument, I haven't heard a single cogent argument against the Fair Tax yet.

Oh, I've heard lots of arguments. Every single one of them either ignores or distorts part of the bill.

The only argument you can make is that it would take power from the government. If you oppose politicians having less power your argument would be valid.

[joesomebody]

Will it be good for the rich? Yes. It would also be great for me. I have a hard time figuring out who this is bad for unless you're in the government.Honest question regarding this. What does government tax income look like under this plan versus the current amount of total money the government gets in taxes?

If I am to understand the very basics of this plan, the more you buy the more you pay in taxes?

Social Security is no more, medicare is no more, medicaid is no more?

What programs are going to be inacted in place of these or are similar programs created and funded by the sales tax?

I like a lot of aspects of a flat tax. My opinion is that either everyone gets free public health care or no one does.

If this new sales tax becomes reality that I feel that taxes should be the same on every category of good. No more overtaxing gasoline, alcohol, and cigarettes.

While we are at it, legalize pot so that the pot smokers pay a fair share of taxes.

[J Diddy]

Regardless of the slave argument, I haven't heard a single cogent argument against the Fair Tax yet.

Oh, I've heard lots of arguments. Every single one of them either ignores or distorts part of the bill.


First I disagree with the slave comment. I think that's just Taco John being melodramatic. That being said, I do like the idea of the fair tax. My only concern is that it could potentially stifle the economy. When you base the tax on solely on what people spend, I could see people spend less to save bucks.

[J Diddy]

Honest question regarding this. What does government tax income look like under this plan versus the current amount of total money the government gets in taxes?

If I am to understand the very basics of this plan, the more you buy the more you pay in taxes?

Social Security is no more, medicare is no more, medicaid is no more?

What programs are going to be inacted in place of these or are similar programs created and funded by the sales tax?

I like a lot of aspects of a flat tax. My opinion is that either everyone gets free public health care or no one does.

If this new sales tax becomes reality that I feel that taxes should be the same on every category of good. No more overtaxing gasoline, alcohol, and cigarettes.

While we are at it, legalize pot so that the pot smokers pay a fair share of taxes.

I watched a documentary on pot the other day. Kinda humorous but had some good stuff in it. Among the most interesting thing was how pot got to be illegal. Said that the oil companies lobbied against it because hemp oil was tearing into their profits hard.

The fact that alcohol and cigs are legal and pot isn't is a tragedy.

[joesomebody]

I watched a documentary on pot the other day. Kinda humorous but had some good stuff in it. Among the most interesting thing was how pot got to be illegal. Said that the oil companies lobbied against it because hemp oil was tearing into their profits hard.

The fact that alcohol and cigs are legal and pot isn't is a tragedy.I'm very socially liberal, though I personally do not partake in any illegal drugs.

My biggest complaint about marijuana being illegal is the huge spike in crime, incarceration, and social stigmas it creates.

People argue it is a gateway drug... do you know why it is a gateway drug? Because it is illegal and taboo, thus once that line is crossed you might as well cross more lines.

Tax it just like everything else. Stop the stupidity in our prisons and courts.

[J Diddy]

I'm very socially liberal, though I personally do not partake in any illegal drugs.

My biggest complaint about marijuana being illegal is the huge spike in crime, incarceration, and social stigmas it creates.

People argue it is a gateway drug... do you know why it is a gateway drug? Because it is illegal and taboo, thus once that line is crossed you might as well cross more lines.

Tax it just like everything else. Stop the stupidity in our prisons and courts.

This.


Imagine the tax revenue created and the criminal expenses removed just by making it legal.

[NickAthanFan]

First I disagree with the slave comment. I think that's just Taco John being melodramatic. That being said, I do like the idea of the fair tax. My only concern is that it could potentially stifle the economy. When you base the tax on solely on what people spend, I could see people spend less to save bucks.

The Fair Tax would take our economy to heights never before imagined. It wouldn't stifle anything.

[BucEyedPea]

Why didn't they try and pull this off when George W was in office? The Republicans talk a big game but don't even attempt theses difficult tasks when the opportunities present themselves.

And then raise hell when a Democrat doesn't do it for them???

According to the former Executive Director of Fair Tax, it was because Bush's Chief of Staff wanted Bush to deal with SS before that. We all know how that even went. I know the former ED personally and have worked with him on other legislation, he told me in 2000 that Bush told him he would sign it. BTW, the bill has been proposed several times and as I understand there are Ds that do favor it.

[joesomebody]

The Fair Tax would take our economy to heights never before imagined. It wouldn't stifle anything.The only thing I see is a HUGE increase in black market economies springing up. ESPECIALLY among the superwealthy.

Not to mention borders and customs would have to be EXTREMELY strict, and they most certainly are not right now.

Income for the most part is easy to tax on the vast majority of citizens. Sales tax is extremely easy to avoid on a large variety of items.

Not debunking it, I think it is a grand idea. It will however take a lot of steps to make it feasible.

[Simplex3]

Honest question regarding this. What does government tax income look like under this plan versus the current amount of total money the government gets in taxes?

It is revenue neutral to the feds.

If I am to understand the very basics of this plan, the more you buy the more you pay in taxes?

Correct.

Social Security is no more, medicare is no more, medicaid is no more?

What programs are going to be inacted in place of these or are similar programs created and funded by the sales tax?

The programs still exist. They just won't be funded by a payroll deduction.

I like a lot of aspects of a flat tax. My opinion is that either everyone gets free public health care or no one does.

If this new sales tax becomes reality that I feel that taxes should be the same on every category of good. No more overtaxing gasoline, alcohol, and cigarettes.

While we are at it, legalize pot so that the pot smokers pay a fair share of taxes.

The whole premise of the Fair Tax is a flat national retail sales tax on all purchases. So the tax is the same for gas, groceries, Blue Ray players, and yachts. The pre-bate checks are there so that people are only paying taxes when they live above and beyond the bare necessities.

[Simplex3]

First I disagree with the slave comment. I think that's just Taco John being melodramatic. That being said, I do like the idea of the fair tax. My only concern is that it could potentially stifle the economy. When you base the tax on solely on what people spend, I could see people spend less to save bucks.

We could only hope that people would save more money.

[Simplex3]

The only thing I see is a HUGE increase in black market economies springing up. ESPECIALLY among the superwealthy.

Not to mention borders and customs would have to be EXTREMELY strict, and they most certainly are not right now.

Income for the most part is easy to tax on the vast majority of citizens. Sales tax is extremely easy to avoid on a large variety of items.

Not debunking it, I think it is a grand idea. It will however take a lot of steps to make it feasible.

Income is very difficult to define and even more difficult to tax. Hell, the people in Congress who write the laws can't manage to get their taxes paid correctly and the IRS can't manage to tax them.

I personally believe black market sales would be offset by the number of people who under-report their income today.

[joesomebody]

One other thing, I know the rich absolutely hate capital gains. They are really going to hate having to pay 23% sales tax on everything they purchase.

Currently sales tax is a differed tax. It is a tax imposed on businesses that sell items, and they in turn pass the tax to customers to make their prices look lower.

Therefore its really a buy tax, not sales in its current form. Would this continue?

What I mean is, you buy a house for 1 million dollars. You sell it 20 years later for 5 million dollars. With capital gains tax you pay about 15% on 4 million dollars.

With sales tax you would pay 23% on the 1 million dollars thus $1,230,000? Or would the seller of the home have to pay 23% of his $1 million, thus meaning the new capital gains equivilent would be 23% of 5 million instead of 15% of 4 million?

Because with no property tax or income tax, I assure you property will be considered a good that is elligible for sales tax.

[BucEyedPea]

The only thing I see is a HUGE increase in black market economies springing up. ESPECIALLY among the superwealthy.
It's the other way around....it would flush-out our current black market economy, which the IRS is aware is growing. One of the points about the fair tax is that this economy would wind up being taxed. If not, then how is that different than the one we have now? Underground economies usually thrive in countries that have over involvement by govt and little economic freedom....like the former communist countries. Poland had a huge, and very successful underground economy. That's how they really survived. And as our govt grows, gets more involved in economics, over taxes and over-regulates so our own underground economy expands.


Not debunking it, I think it is a grand idea. It will however take a lot of steps to make it feasible.
May I ask, what a excess of steps would be?

As far as I know, the repeal of the 16th Amendment would go back to the states. Then the same people who collect sales tax collect it instead of the IRS. Then there's the rebates but then the IRS gives rebates already too.

[NickAthanFan]

One other thing, I know the rich absolutely hate capital gains. They are really going to hate having to pay 23% sales tax on everything they purchase.

Currently sales tax is a differed tax. It is a tax imposed on businesses that sell items, and they in turn pass the tax to customers to make their prices look lower.

Therefore its really a buy tax, not sales in its current form. Would this continue?

What I mean is, you buy a house for 1 million dollars. You sell it 20 years later for 5 million dollars. With capital gains tax you pay about 15% on 4 million dollars.

With sales tax you would pay 23% on the 1 million dollars thus $1,230,000? Or would the seller of the home have to pay 23% of his $1 million, thus meaning the new capital gains equivilent would be 23% of 5 million instead of 15% of 4 million?

Because with no property tax or income tax, I assure you property will be considered a good that is elligible for sales tax.

You should read the fair tax book. The only homes (or any products for that matter) that would be taxed are the new ones. But with the offset of what it currently costs for taxes to the person building that house the price would not change much if at all.

Homes that have already been built and sold would no longer be subject to this tax.

[J Diddy]

We could only hope that people would save more money.

how exactly would that help the economy?

[ClevelandBronco]

how exactly would that help the economy?

Unless you keep it in a jar in your back yard, let's assume that it's invested in a business venture of some kind.

[BucEyedPea]

how exactly would that help the economy?

Sound fiscal management means you save a portion of your earnings and not spend all of it. As people save, it builds capital which leads to investment and new business starting. That does help the economy.

A binge of false statistics based on conspicuous consumption doesn't lead to real lasting wealth...it leads to what we're in: spending, debt and fiscal crisis.
Old fashioned, I know. But this is how America became wealthy once upon a time, until we got bread and circuses.

Rating an economy solely on spending is Keynesianism. It's an unbalanced approach.

It should be up to business competing with attractive products and services at prices most can afford that people value enough to exchange their dollars. And a sound marketing and advertising program that convinces them to buy...these things also create demand. They just get done by the people themselves....not some cheesy central bank that makes millions on cheap easy credit then uses the taxpayer to bail their banking buddies out and bankrupt's the govt at the same time.

And yes, Madison Avenue did help pull us out of the Great Depression.

[joesomebody]

You should read the fair tax book. The only homes (or any products for that matter) that would be taxed are the new ones. But with the offset of what it currently costs for taxes to the person building that house the price would not change much if at all.

Homes that have already been built and sold would no longer be subject to this tax.Interesting. Used cars change hands tax free? Doesn't that quash any desire to buy a new car?

I'm not trying to argue for arguments sake, its just a pretty radical idea (compared to what has been our country's policy for quite some time) and I find it pretty hard to beleive it is flawless.

[Saul Good]

I could see people spend less to save bucks.Yes. If we had a flat tax, people might spend less in order to save money. That is an interesting observation. How did you come to this epiphany?

[NickAthanFan]

Interesting. Used cars change hands tax free? Doesn't that quash any desire to buy a new car?

I'm not trying to argue for arguments sake, its just a pretty radical idea (compared to what has been our country's policy for quite some time) and I find it pretty hard to beleive it is flawless.

You need to read the book. It's well worth it, and all these questions you have will be answered.

:thumb:

[Saul Good]

I watched a documentary on pot the other day. Kinda humorous but had some good stuff in it. Among the most interesting thing was how pot got to be illegal. Said that the oil companies lobbied against it because hemp oil was tearing into their profits hard.

The fact that alcohol and cigs are legal and pot isn't is a tragedy.Legalize marijuana and abolish the IRS. I've never smoked pot nor have I ever cheated on my taxes, but I would vote for any politician who ran on these 2 platforms.

[J Diddy]

Unless you keep it in a jar in your back yard, let's assume that it's invested in a business venture of some kind.


Okay so everyone's investing money, but no one is buying anything. How does that help the economy?

[Hydrae]

One other thing, I know the rich absolutely hate capital gains. They are really going to hate having to pay 23% sales tax on everything they purchase.

Currently sales tax is a differed tax. It is a tax imposed on businesses that sell items, and they in turn pass the tax to customers to make their prices look lower.

Therefore its really a buy tax, not sales in its current form. Would this continue?

What I mean is, you buy a house for 1 million dollars. You sell it 20 years later for 5 million dollars. With capital gains tax you pay about 15% on 4 million dollars.

With sales tax you would pay 23% on the 1 million dollars thus $1,230,000? Or would the seller of the home have to pay 23% of his $1 million, thus meaning the new capital gains equivilent would be 23% of 5 million instead of 15% of 4 million?

Because with no property tax or income tax, I assure you property will be considered a good that is elligible for sales tax.

One quick point, property taxes are not federal so this would have no affect on them.

[J Diddy]

Yes. If we had a flat tax, people might spend less in order to save money. That is an interesting observation. How did you come to this epiphany?

It's pretty neat how you took this sentence out of context. I also said that was a downside that would hurt the economy.

[ClevelandBronco]

Okay so everyone's investing money, but no one is buying anything. How does that help the economy?

You can't be serious.

The money is invested and you wonder how that could possibly help the economy.

You truly can't be serious...

[ClevelandBronco]

Okay so everyone's investing money, but no one is buying anything. How does that help the economy?

"No one is buying anything."

God help you.

[J Diddy]

You can't be serious.

The money is invested and you wonder how that could possibly help the economy.

You truly can't be serious...

Um, I can stick $1000 into a company right now. If nobodys buying anything right now what kind of return I will get on my money?

[J Diddy]

"No one is buying anything."

God help you.

Now please quit quoting me and answer my question. Why would I invest money in a company who's sales aren't doing well because the tax system has an incentive not to buy anything? What kind of return would I get when the primary source of income is investments?

[ClevelandBronco]

Um, I can stick $1000 into a company right now. If nobodys buying anything right now what kind of return I will get on my money?

This is nothing but shocking.

[J Diddy]

This is nothing but shocking.
yes I know your evasion is legendary

HOC material

[ClevelandBronco]

Now please quit quoting me and answer my question. Why would I invest money in a company who's sales aren't doing well because the tax system has an incentive not to buy anything? What kind of return would I get when the primary source of income is investments?

Where would you like to keep your money?

[ClevelandBronco]

BTW: What is HOC?

[J Diddy]

BTW: What is HOC?

Hall of Classics
Newb


:shake:

[J Diddy]

Where would you like to keep your money?

For instance why would I invest in an automobile company. A 23 percent flat tax will kill them.

[Simplex3]

One other thing, I know the rich absolutely hate capital gains. They are really going to hate having to pay 23% sales tax on everything they purchase.

Currently sales tax is a differed tax. It is a tax imposed on businesses that sell items, and they in turn pass the tax to customers to make their prices look lower.

Therefore its really a buy tax, not sales in its current form. Would this continue?

What I mean is, you buy a house for 1 million dollars. You sell it 20 years later for 5 million dollars. With capital gains tax you pay about 15% on 4 million dollars.

With sales tax you would pay 23% on the 1 million dollars thus $1,230,000? Or would the seller of the home have to pay 23% of his $1 million, thus meaning the new capital gains equivilent would be 23% of 5 million instead of 15% of 4 million?

Because with no property tax or income tax, I assure you property will be considered a good that is elligible for sales tax.

When you purchased the home, you would be responsible for the sales tax.

[Simplex3]

Unless you keep it in a jar in your back yard, let's assume that it's invested in a business venture of some kind.

I like jars.

[ClevelandBronco]

For instance why would I invest in an automobile company. A 23 percent flat tax will kill them.

Oh.

My.

God.

Where would you like to put your money?

[Simplex3]

One quick point, property taxes are not federal so this would have no affect on them.

Correct. You would then have to get on your state's ass about those taxes.

[Simplex3]

It's pretty neat how you took this sentence out of context. I also said that was a downside that would hurt the economy.

You mean that bitchin' economy that is in the shitter right now? Wouldn't want to put a damper on that bad boy.

[Simplex3]

Um, I can stick $1000 into a company right now. If nobodys buying anything right now what kind of return I will get on my money?

So if you suddenly had 30% more money in your check and no appreciable increase to the cost of goods you're telling me you would buy LESS stuff? Really? That's the argument you're going with?

[Simplex3]

For instance why would I invest in an automobile company. A 23 percent flat tax will kill them.

How? 22% of the price of a car on the lot today is overhead from federal taxes. That's a price increase to the end customer of just over 1%. A customer who now has 30% more income because the government isn't stealing it from their check.

[joesomebody]

You need to read the book. It's well worth it, and all these questions you have will be answered.

:thumb:I think I will. Might be summer before I have time, but it has piqued my interest.

[Simplex3]

I think I will. Might be summer before I have time, but it has piqued my interest.

I haven't spoken to anyone that read the book and didn't enjoy it. Nearly all of them come out Fair Tax proponents as well.

[J Diddy]

So if you suddenly had 30% more money in your check and no appreciable increase to the cost of goods you're telling me you would buy LESS stuff? Really? That's the argument you're going with?

Of course everything would cost 23 percent more. Groceries, gas, etc. So it's not like I'm gonna get an extra 30 percent with no strings attached.

Now lets say I get an extra 30 percent on my check and all my staples raised 23%. That's not a tremendous increase in revenue.

[J Diddy]

I haven't spoken to anyone that read the book and didn't enjoy it. Nearly all of them come out Fair Tax proponents as well.

Furthermore, I'd like to add that I'm a proponent of Fair Tax, I've just got questions that need answered. Sort of playing the devil's advocate.

[ClevelandBronco]

...Sort of playing the devil's advocate.

More like you're sort of a perfect idiot.

[Simplex3]

Of course everything would cost 23 percent more. Groceries, gas, etc. So it's not like I'm gonna get an extra 30 percent with no strings attached.

Now lets say I get an extra 30 percent on my check and all my staples raised 23%. That's not a tremendous increase in revenue.

Holy crap. Let's see if this catches you up.

Let's say WidgetCo. sells their Widget for $100 today. You make $10k a year in salary (gross).

Your take home pay today will be somewhere in the neighborhood of $7.5k, on average. The widget still costs $100.

WidgetCo pays federal corporate taxes today. They are an average company, so they increase the price of each widget about $22 to cover those taxes, thereby arriving at the $100 selling price.

The next day the Fair Tax goes into effect.

You are now taking home the full $10k you are earning. WidgetCo now pays no federal taxes. In an effort to make sure they don't lose market share to Wacky Widgets Inc, they lower their price the $22 per unit they were charging to cover the taxes they now don't have to pay. This leaves their profit margins intact.

You go to the store and have to pay a 23% tax on that new Widget you've been wanting. Except now the widget isn't $100, it's $78. Your cost to walk out the door with the widget is now $95.94.

Yep. You're getting hosed.

[J Diddy]

More like you're sort of a perfect idiot.


You've managed to post 5 times on this thread without saying anything. Then you call me an idiot. So please alleviate my concerns. I'm thinking you have no answers and your whole schtick is to just say that someone's an idiot, etc. Whatever gets your fancy.

Either way blow a goat or screw a monkey.

[ClevelandBronco]

You've managed to post 5 times on this thread without saying anything. Then you call me an idiot. So please alleviate my concerns. I'm thinking you have no answers and your whole schtick is to just say that someone's an idiot, etc. Whatever gets your fancy.

Either way blow a goat or screw a monkey.

Answer the question, idiot. Where would you like to put your money?

[J Diddy]

Holy crap. Let's see if this catches you up.

Let's say WidgetCo. sells their Widget for $100 today. You make $10k a year in salary (gross).

Your take home pay today will be somewhere in the neighborhood of $7.5k, on average. The widget still costs $100.

WidgetCo pays federal corporate taxes today. They are an average company, so they increase the price of each widget about $22 to cover those taxes, thereby arriving at the $100 selling price.

The next day the Fair Tax goes into effect.

You are now taking home the full $10k you are earning. WidgetCo now pays no federal taxes. In an effort to make sure they don't lose market share to Wacky Widgets Inc, they lower their price the $22 per unit they were charging to cover the taxes they now don't have to pay. This leaves their profit margins intact.

You go to the store and have to pay a 23% tax on that new Widget you've been wanting. Except now the widget isn't $100, it's $78. Your cost to walk out the door with the widget is now $95.94.

Yep. You're getting hosed.

So the company pays no taxes period?

[ClevelandBronco]

Let me guess. You have no money.

[J Diddy]

Answer the question, idiot. Where would you like to put your money?

I did answer the question. (and I'm the idiot:shrug:)


Make it six posts without saying anything.

[J Diddy]

Let me guess. You have no money.

Seven.

[Simplex3]

So the company pays no taxes period?

No federal taxes. What the city, county, and state do is beyond the scope of the Fair Tax. However, those burdens are literally nothing compared to the federal burden.

[ClevelandBronco]

Seven.

Cool. Die poor.

[J Diddy]

No federal taxes. What the city, county, and state do is beyond the scope of the Fair Tax. However, those burdens are literally nothing compared to the federal burden.

Ok, see that's the thing I didn't get. I appreciate you not being a douche and explaining it to me.

[J Diddy]

Cool. Die poor.

Eight. You going for a record or something?

[Simplex3]

Ok, see that's the thing I didn't get. I appreciate you not being a douche and explaining it to me.

It basically limits the feds income stream to retail sales only. The major advantages being that you can earn whatever you want without the feds being able to punish you, but more importantly, it puts it right out in the open exactly how much the feds are costing everyone.

[J Diddy]

It basically limits the feds income stream to retail sales only. The major advantages being that you can earn whatever you want without the feds being able to punish you, but more importantly, it puts it right out in the open exactly how much the feds are costing everyone.

Okay, now I'm totally sold. I think the new business boost would be worth it alone.

[joesomebody]

Who stands to lose the most? (which would partially explain to me why this hasn't been enacted) Secondly have any modern countries tried this plan or something similar recently?

[ClevelandBronco]

...have any modern countries tried this plan or something similar recently?

That's it. That's fucking it.

[Simplex3]

Who stands to lose the most? (which would partially explain to me why this hasn't been enacted) Secondly have any modern countries tried this plan or something similar recently?

The losers in this plan are politicians, and for several reasons.

1) They can no longer game the system in favor of their donors
2) They can no longer affect your behavior by shuffling numbers
3) They generally lose power
4) It becomes painfully obvious to every American overnight just how much money the federal government is costing them

The estimated 23% sales tax keeps the government revenue neutral, so they wouldn't have to change their spending plans (except of course for the fact that they are in the red every year, but that hasn't slowed them down any).

[J Diddy]

That's it. That's ****ing it.

http://ipoopexcellence.com/images/DoucheBagmotivator.jpg

[Taco John]

That's it. That's ****ing it.


ROFL

/believe me, it's a bitter chuckle that I chuckle...

[Simplex3]

Who stands to lose the most? (which would partially explain to me why this hasn't been enacted) Secondly have any modern countries tried this plan or something similar recently?



No. Politicians don't want to lose that kind of power.

The only real shot this thing would have is if the states called a Constitutional Convention and added it to the US Constitution as an amendment over the heads of the federal government, which is perfectly legal.

[J Diddy]

No. Politicians don't want to lose that kind of power.

The only real shot this thing would have is if the states called a Constitutional Convention and added it to the US Constitution as an amendment over the heads of the federal government, which is perfectly legal.



Which has never happened so I don't call it a real shot.

[joesomebody]

That's it. That's ****ing it.If there was an emote for the low and stupid to look up at you on your mountain of genius, I'd insert it here first.

Now, what is the problem with my question? I'm simply curious if something similar to this proposed tax plan has been tried.

[J Diddy]

If there was an emote for the low and stupid to look up at you on your mountain of genius, I'd insert it here first.

Now, what is the problem with my question? I'm simply curious if something similar to this proposed tax plan has been tried.

He's trying to get his rocks off picking a fight. Ignore his simpleton ass. He's that guy in class from high school who doesn't know anything but tries to look smart by insulting the people asking questions.

[ClevelandBronco]

...what is the problem with my question?...

The problem is that you don't already know the answer to that question and still you're here in a political discussion forum.

[Taco John]

If there was an emote for the low and stupid to look up at you on your mountain of genius, I'd insert it here first.


We need this smilie:

http://www.extremeskins.com/images/smilies/allhail.gif

[Taco John]

The problem is that you don't already know the answer to that question and still you're here in a political discussion forum.

...and that's just the tip of the iceberg...

[Taco John]

He's trying to get his rocks off picking a fight. Ignore his simpleton ass. He's that guy in class from high school who doesn't know anything but tries to look smart by insulting the people asking questions.

CB has forgotten more about politics and world history that you'll ever care to study. Is he treating you like a douche? He sure is.

[J Diddy]

CB has forgotten more about politics and world history that you'll ever care to study. Is he treating you like a douche? He sure is.


Oh burn, the donkey troll, done snapped me.

[J Diddy]

I did however find a unique pic of clevelandbronco that Taco John took.

http://people.zoy.org/~sam/douche.gif

[joesomebody]

The problem is that you don't already know the answer to that question and still you're here in a political discussion forum.It looks like the only countries that employ a flat tax system are in Eastern Europe. Terrific, they've long been known to have terrific government policies.

[joesomebody]

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

Nice information. A lot of the cons were similar to what I was at first curious about. Seeing the huge list of Economists that are pro Fair Tax Act is encouraging.

[joesomebody]

We need this smilie:

http://www.extremeskins.com/images/smilies/allhail.gifIndeed, I like it. Almost exactly what I was looking for.

[Saggysack]

Being married with 2 kids, my end of year federal tax burden is right around 12%.

Someone please tell me how it would benefit me and my family to raise it to 23%. Even using 23%, which is a very optimistic number based on returns in a glowing economy. Since we aren't exactly glowing, let's say 34% keeps us solvent. Why would it benefit me to raise my taxes anywhere from 2-3x my current rate? And we haven't even gotten into state taxes yet. Those aren't going to suddenly going to go away. The state will be calling as well. So in the end you are looking at somewhere near a 40-50% consumption tax federal and state(depending on which state you reside). Want a tax burden like France? Didn't think so.

Fair tax isn't exactly fair like it's supporters portry it to be. Nice little mislabeled package IMO. It's not fair, no tax is. It is consumption tax that shifts the majority of the tax burden on the middle class, the real consumers. No thanks, I'll take a progressive tax system where those that make the most, pay the most.

Read up.
http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.html

[Taco John]

Being married with 2 kids, my end of year federal tax burden is right around 12%.



Your household income is less than $16,050?

There is no 12% tax bracket - but that's how little you'd have to make to be in the 10% tax bracket.

Here's the Married Filing Jointly tax schedule for this year:

10% on the income between $0 and $16,050
15% on the income between $16,050 and $65,100; plus $1,605.00
25% on the income between $65,100 and $131,450; plus $8,962.50
28% on the income between $131,450 and $200,300; plus $25,550.00
33% on the income between $200,300 and $357,700; plus $44,828.00
35% on the income over $357,700; plus $96,770.00

[Saggysack]

Your household income is less than $16,050?

There is no 12% tax bracket - but that's how little you'd have to make to be in the 10% tax bracket.


No.

After deductions, tax credits and other adjustments, I have a federal tax burden of right around 12-14% on any given year. Do me a favor, never give me any tax advice. You will have me paying more than I should.

[Saggysack]

How the hell is a tax bracket my tax burden anyway?

[InChiefsHell]

As I understand it, all other federal taxes would go away Saggy, so federal phone taxes, and all the other hidden shit that we don't see would be gone. The only tax you pay is when you buy stuff, so you would adjust accordingly. I agree that the 23% sounds a little scary, but I believe that besides income tax, most of us pay a lot more than we really know already. This would take off the Emperor's clothes and also eliminate a huge amount of bureaucracy and control that the feds currently have over us.

I for one hope we come to this in this country, but I don't see it happening under the current administration. I can't imagine Obama would be a supporter of this.

I need to read the book too...

[Simplex3]

Being married with 2 kids, my end of year federal tax burden is right around 12%.

Someone please tell me how it would benefit me and my family to raise it to 23%. Even using 23%, which is a very optimistic number based on returns in a glowing economy. Since we aren't exactly glowing, let's say 34% keeps us solvent. Why would it benefit me to raise my taxes anywhere from 2-3x my current rate? And we haven't even gotten into state taxes yet. Those aren't going to suddenly going to go away. The state will be calling as well. So in the end you are looking at somewhere near a 40-50% consumption tax federal and state(depending on which state you reside). Want a tax burden like France? Didn't think so.

Fair tax isn't exactly fair like it's supporters portry it to be. Nice little mislabeled package IMO. It's not fair, no tax is. It is consumption tax that shifts the majority of the tax burden on the middle class, the real consumers. No thanks, I'll take a progressive tax system where those that make the most, pay the most.

Read up.
http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.html

Factcheck.org, owned by the Annenberg Foundation, a bunch of ultra-liberal bed wetters. Contrary to popular opinion it is NOT an unbiased source.

And it wouldn't raise your tax rate to 23% (or 35% in your worst nightmares). Unless, of course, you spend every penny you make on retail goods. And I mean every penny. If you're doing that, however, you're too stupid to be trusted with money anyway, and I don't think you are that dumb.

I think you're buying the bullshit from people you've decided (for whatever reason) are looking out for your best interest. Let me be the first to burst that bubble: Nobody is looking out for your best interest.

[Simplex3]

As I understand it, all other federal taxes would go away Saggy, so federal phone taxes, and all the other hidden shit that we don't see would be gone. The only tax you pay is when you buy stuff, so you would adjust accordingly. I agree that the 23% sounds a little scary, but I believe that besides income tax, most of us pay a lot more than we really know already.

Saggysack and factcheck are also conveniently forgetting that the actual price to walk out of the store with the good will not increase because the federal taxes on businesses, which account for about 22% of the price of all goods, would be gone. Factcheck.org likes to ignore that little bit, though, because it doesn't suit their needs.

[BigRedChief]

Your household income is less than $16,050?

There is no 12% tax bracket - but that's how little you'd have to make to be in the 10% tax bracket.

Here's the Married Filing Jointly tax schedule for this year:

10% on the income between $0 and $16,050
15% on the income between $16,050 and $65,100; plus $1,605.00
25% on the income between $65,100 and $131,450; plus $8,962.50
28% on the income between $131,450 and $200,300; plus $25,550.00
33% on the income between $200,300 and $357,700; plus $44,828.00
35% on the income over $357,700; plus $96,770.00

<TABLE style="BORDER-RIGHT: #999999 1px solid; BORDER-TOP: #999999 1px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #999999 1px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 10px; BORDER-BOTTOM: #999999 1px solid" width="40%" align=left><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 4px; BORDER-TOP: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 4px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4px; BORDER-LEFT: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-TOP: 4px; BORDER-BOTTOM: #999999 1px solid" colSpan=3>Tax Savings</TD></TR><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 4px; BORDER-TOP: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 4px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4px; BORDER-LEFT: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-TOP: 4px; BORDER-BOTTOM: #999999 1px solid" colSpan=3>How households may fare under the economic recovery plan.</TD></TR><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 4px; BORDER-TOP: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 4px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4px; BORDER-LEFT: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-TOP: 4px; BORDER-BOTTOM: #999999 1px solid" align=middle>Income</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 4px; BORDER-TOP: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 4px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4px; BORDER-LEFT: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-TOP: 4px; BORDER-BOTTOM: #999999 1px solid" align=middle>Avg. Tax Savings</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 4px; BORDER-TOP: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 4px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4px; BORDER-LEFT: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-TOP: 4px; BORDER-BOTTOM: #999999 1px solid" align=middle>Drop in Tax Bite</TD></TR><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 4px; BORDER-TOP: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 4px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4px; BORDER-LEFT: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-TOP: 4px; BORDER-BOTTOM: #999999 1px solid" align=middle>Under $19K</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 4px; BORDER-TOP: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 4px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4px; BORDER-LEFT: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-TOP: 4px; BORDER-BOTTOM: #999999 1px solid" align=middle>$476</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 4px; BORDER-TOP: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 4px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4px; BORDER-LEFT: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-TOP: 4px; BORDER-BOTTOM: #999999 1px solid" align=middle>-95%</TD></TR><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 4px; BORDER-TOP: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 4px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4px; BORDER-LEFT: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-TOP: 4px; BORDER-BOTTOM: #999999 1px solid" align=middle>$19K-$38K</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 4px; BORDER-TOP: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 4px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4px; BORDER-LEFT: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-TOP: 4px; BORDER-BOTTOM: #999999 1px solid" align=middle>$652</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 4px; BORDER-TOP: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 4px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4px; BORDER-LEFT: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-TOP: 4px; BORDER-BOTTOM: #999999 1px solid" align=middle>-22%</TD></TR><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 4px; BORDER-TOP: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 4px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4px; BORDER-LEFT: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-TOP: 4px; BORDER-BOTTOM: #999999 1px solid" align=middle>$38K-$66K</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 4px; BORDER-TOP: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 4px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4px; BORDER-LEFT: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-TOP: 4px; BORDER-BOTTOM: #999999 1px solid" align=middle>$781</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 4px; BORDER-TOP: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 4px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4px; BORDER-LEFT: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-TOP: 4px; BORDER-BOTTOM: #999999 1px solid" align=middle>-9%</TD></TR><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 4px; BORDER-TOP: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 4px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4px; BORDER-LEFT: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-TOP: 4px; BORDER-BOTTOM: #999999 1px solid" align=middle>$66K-$112K</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 4px; BORDER-TOP: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 4px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4px; BORDER-LEFT: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-TOP: 4px; BORDER-BOTTOM: #999999 1px solid" align=middle>$1,301</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 4px; BORDER-TOP: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 4px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4px; BORDER-LEFT: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-TOP: 4px; BORDER-BOTTOM: #999999 1px solid" align=middle>-7.5%</TD></TR><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 4px; BORDER-TOP: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 4px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4px; BORDER-LEFT: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-TOP: 4px; BORDER-BOTTOM: #999999 1px solid" align=middle>$112K-$161K</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 4px; BORDER-TOP: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 4px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4px; BORDER-LEFT: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-TOP: 4px; BORDER-BOTTOM: #999999 1px solid" align=middle>$2,549</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 4px; BORDER-TOP: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 4px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4px; BORDER-LEFT: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-TOP: 4px; BORDER-BOTTOM: #999999 1px solid" align=middle>-8.3%</TD></TR><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 4px; BORDER-TOP: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 4px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4px; BORDER-LEFT: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-TOP: 4px; BORDER-BOTTOM: #999999 1px solid" align=middle>$161K-$227K</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 4px; BORDER-TOP: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 4px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4px; BORDER-LEFT: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-TOP: 4px; BORDER-BOTTOM: #999999 1px solid" align=middle>$3,883</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 4px; BORDER-TOP: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 4px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4px; BORDER-LEFT: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-TOP: 4px; BORDER-BOTTOM: #999999 1px solid" align=middle>-8.3%</TD></TR><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 4px; BORDER-TOP: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 4px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4px; BORDER-LEFT: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-TOP: 4px; BORDER-BOTTOM: #999999 1px solid" align=middle>$227K-$603K</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 4px; BORDER-TOP: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 4px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4px; BORDER-LEFT: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-TOP: 4px; BORDER-BOTTOM: #999999 1px solid" align=middle>$5,133</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 4px; BORDER-TOP: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 4px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4px; BORDER-LEFT: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-TOP: 4px; BORDER-BOTTOM: #999999 1px solid" align=middle>-5.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 4px; BORDER-TOP: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 4px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4px; BORDER-LEFT: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-TOP: 4px; BORDER-BOTTOM: #999999 1px solid" align=middle>$2.8M plus</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 4px; BORDER-TOP: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 4px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4px; BORDER-LEFT: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-TOP: 4px; BORDER-BOTTOM: #999999 1px solid" align=middle>$39,350</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 4px; BORDER-TOP: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 4px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4px; BORDER-LEFT: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-TOP: 4px; BORDER-BOTTOM: #999999 1px solid" align=middle>-1.4%</TD></TR><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 4px; BORDER-TOP: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 4px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4px; BORDER-LEFT: #999999 1px solid; PADDING-TOP: 4px; BORDER-BOTTOM: #999999 1px solid" align=middle colSpan=3>Source: The Tax Policy Center</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[CoMoChief]

Who stands to lose the most? (which would partially explain to me why this hasn't been enacted) Secondly have any modern countries tried this plan or something similar recently?

Money and govt. Liberals want you to believe that this country absolutely can not function without govt. They want you to believe that America is great because of govt.

[Saggysack]

Factcheck.org, owned by the Annenberg Foundation, a bunch of ultra-liberal bed wetters. Contrary to popular opinion it is NOT an unbiased source.

And it wouldn't raise your tax rate to 23% (or 35% in your worst nightmares). Unless, of course, you spend every penny you make on retail goods. And I mean every penny. If you're doing that, however, you're too stupid to be trusted with money anyway, and I don't think you are that dumb.

I think you're buying the bullshit from people you've decided (for whatever reason) are looking out for your best interest. Let me be the first to burst that bubble: Nobody is looking out for your best interest.

ROFL

Even Neal Boortz, the creator of the FairTax admits it is based on fuzzy math. He admits that the real % is 30%, not 23%. Admit it, you really haven't looked at the math behind the FairTax proposal, have you? Your post clearly illustrates such. The tax isn't just for retail goods. It clearly states it is for retail goods and other services. Since other services sounds pretty broad I'm going to error on the side of caution and take it as meaning everything else. FairTax proposal wouldn't abolish the IRS as so many want to believe. The IRS would be just as huge as it is now. Nothing would change on that front. Who do you think would collect all the tax for the Govt.?

Sounds to me like you need to do a little more reading on something you have bought hook, line and sinker on a couple catch phrases.

[Simplex3]

ROFL

Even Neal Boortz, the creator of the FairTax admits it is based on fuzzy math. He admits that the real % is 30%, not 23%. Admit it, you really haven't looked at the math behind the FairTax proposal, have you? Your post clearly illustrates such. The tax isn't just for retail goods. It clearly states it is for retail goods and other services. Since other services sounds pretty broad I'm going to error on the side of caution and take it as meaning everything else. FairTax proposal wouldn't abolish the IRS as so many want to believe. The IRS would be just as huge as it is now. Nothing would change on that front. Who do you think would collect all the tax for the Govt.?

Sounds to me like you need to do a little more reading on something you have bought hook, line and sinker on a couple catch phrases.

As for "fuzzy math", it is true that nobody knows for sure what the tax rate will need to be. That's because, unlike most politicians, the Fair Tax proponents understand that when you change the rules the players will change how they play the game. So while we can guess what will happen, until it does we won't know for certain.

The government is collecting sales tax today. They also collect income tax today. And corporate taxes. And a slew of other taxes.

If I eliminate all but the sales tax, how exactly does that leave the same workload for the IRS?

I don't think you've looked clearly at exactly how many different federal taxes you pay and how much your expenses go up because other people are also paying. There is simply no possible way for our current system to be considered efficient. On any level. It costs us billions of dollars a year just to comply with it, not to mention what the government pays the IRS.

[Sully]

This is not a reason for or against this...just something I've always wondered if this were to happen...


Quite a few crimes (drug-related, etc) are solved or prosecuted based on money aundering, correct?
This would take that ability completely away, wouldn't it?

Like I said, that's no argument against it, just a curiosity of mine.

[Simplex3]

I don't see how it would affect that. Money laundering is basically selling nothing for cash, then buying nothing for that same cash. Corporate taxes were never really involved there that I can see.

[banyon]

The government is collecting sales tax today. They also collect income tax today. And corporate taxes. And a slew of other taxes.

If I eliminate all but the sales tax, how exactly does that leave the same workload for the IRS?

I don't think you've looked clearly at exactly how many different federal taxes you pay and how much your expenses go up because other people are also paying. There is simply no possible way for our current system to be considered efficient. On any level. It costs us billions of dollars a year just to comply with it, not to mention what the government pays the IRS.

The federal government does not collect sales tax. Nor does it follow that having more than one type of tax is more difficult to collect than a previously uncollected type.

When I used to talk to people about taxes, it was far more common for me to be talking to a business which had fallen behind on their state sales tax than an individual who had not paid income tax.


In general the tax code is way too complex, but a sales tax isn't magic either.

[banyon]

This is not a reason for or against this...just something I've always wondered if this were to happen...


Quite a few crimes (drug-related, etc) are solved or prosecuted based on money aundering, correct?
This would take that ability completely away, wouldn't it?

Like I said, that's no argument against it, just a curiosity of mine.

I guess you're talking about where a person has unreported or unexplained income that could only have come from illicit activities and this is discovered initially throgh tax records.

I don't know the number of prosecutions that begin that way, but it certainly would impact them. Hell, you don't have to report where you got any money in this scenario, You could just be an assassin or whatever and you'd still pay the same sales tax (assuming you didn't have a discount or deal at the register).

[bkkcoh]

Not one Democrat amongst the bill sponsers.

It that truly a surprise. What would rangel do without the power from his committee. Without the chairmanship, what would he do?


It seems like common sense to me, why would anyone not want this? :shrug:

Because it would make sense to actually have something like this, that is why it wouldn't ever happen.

[patteeu]

Being married with 2 kids, my end of year federal tax burden is right around 12%.

Someone please tell me how it would benefit me and my family to raise it to 23%. Even using 23%, which is a very optimistic number based on returns in a glowing economy. Since we aren't exactly glowing, let's say 34% keeps us solvent. Why would it benefit me to raise my taxes anywhere from 2-3x my current rate? And we haven't even gotten into state taxes yet. Those aren't going to suddenly going to go away. The state will be calling as well. So in the end you are looking at somewhere near a 40-50% consumption tax federal and state(depending on which state you reside). Want a tax burden like France? Didn't think so.

Fair tax isn't exactly fair like it's supporters portry it to be. Nice little mislabeled package IMO. It's not fair, no tax is. It is consumption tax that shifts the majority of the tax burden on the middle class, the real consumers. No thanks, I'll take a progressive tax system where those that make the most, pay the most.

Read up.
http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.html

How the hell is a tax bracket my tax burden anyway?

That's the question you should be asking yourself. You're comparing an effective tax rate (income tax) for just one of a whole group of federal taxes (payroll taxes, corporate taxes, etc.) you currently pay against the marginal tax rate (fair tax) of the single tax that is intended to replace them. It's not even close to an apples to apples comparison.

[patteeu]

Someone, early in the thread, asked what value a switch to the FAIR tax would have beyond it's direct personal impact in terms of total tax liability either positive or negative to each individual. Here's one area in which our economy would see a huge benefit by the adoption of the FAIR Tax:

Currently, products produced in the US and exported to foreign markets carry built in costs associated with the corporate taxes paid by the manufacturing corporation and the income and payroll taxes associated with the labor used to make the product. If we switched to a FAIR tax model, exporters would be able to set their prices significantly lower because they wouldn't need to recoup these tax related costs. This would make US made products more competitive with foreign made products in foreign markets.

The same competitiveness factor works in the favor of US producers in domestic markets. Currently, imports that carry no tax-related costs have a competitive advantage over domestic products that have built in costs attributable to the various federal taxes imposed upon their manufacturer. Under a FAIR tax, both domestic products and foreign imports would be subject to the same FAIR tax.

This is the kind of reform we need in order to remove self-imposed shackles we place on domestic businesses that make them less competitive relative to their foreign counterparts in both domestic and foreign markets.

[banyon]

Someone, early in the thread, asked what value a switch to the FAIR tax would have beyond it's direct personal impact in terms of total tax liability either positive or negative to each individual. Here's one area in which our economy would see a huge benefit by the adoption of the FAIR Tax:

Currently, products produced in the US and exported to foreign markets carry built in costs associated with the corporate taxes paid by the manufacturing corporation and the income and payroll taxes associated with the labor used to make the product. If we switched to a FAIR tax model, exporters would be able to set their prices significantly lower because they wouldn't need to recoup these tax related costs. This would make US made products more competitive with foreign made products in foreign markets.
The same competitiveness factor works in the favor of US producers in domestic markets. Currently, imports that carry no tax-related costs have a competitive advantage over domestic products that have built in costs attributable to the various federal taxes imposed upon their manufacturer. Under a FAIR tax, both domestic products and foreign imports would be subject to the same FAIR tax.

This is the kind of reform we need in order to remove self-imposed shackles we place on domestic businesses that make them less competitive relative to their foreign counterparts in both domestic and foreign markets.

If this is correct, then why would you ever produce anything for domestic consumption?

[patteeu]

If this is correct, then why would you ever produce anything for domestic consumption?

It is correct and despite the tax disadvantages, American companies continue to produce products for export because being less competitive doesn't mean you're completely uncompetitive. Changing the tax code to remove this impediment would be a boost to American business, and in turn to American workers.

[Sully]

I guess you're talking about where a person has unreported or unexplained income that could only have come from illicit activities and this is discovered initially throgh tax records.

I don't know the number of prosecutions that begin that way, but it certainly would impact them. Hell, you don't have to report where you got any money in this scenario, You could just be an assassin or whatever and you'd still pay the same sales tax (assuming you didn't have a discount or deal at the register).

Though I may not have typed in correctly, that's exactly what I mean. Thanks.

I don't know how often it happens, either.
Maybe I've watched too many detective shows and gangster movies (and "Office Space")

[banyon]

It is correct and despite the tax disadvantages, American companies continue to produce products for export because being less competitive doesn't mean you're completely uncompetitive. Changing the tax code to remove this impediment would be a boost to American business, and in turn to American workers.

Wait, you've pulled the switcheroo here. There aren't currently any tax disadvantages wrt labor costs/payroll tax for importing or exporting since the same workers will be paid here regardless of whether the products are imported or exported.

You'r creating a tax advantage to exporting, since the heavy new sales tax would not apply (If I understand this scheme correctly) to exports.

[patteeu]

Wait, you've pulled the switcheroo here. There aren't currently any tax disadvantages wrt labor costs/payroll tax for importing or exporting since the same workers will be paid here regardless of whether the products are imported or exported.

You'r creating a tax advantage to exporting, since the heavy new sales tax would not apply (If I understand this scheme correctly) to exports.

No, I haven't pulled a switcheroo. You must be misunderstanding me. I'm not exactly sure what you're saying but it's not true to say that there aren't currently tax disadvantages due to our tax system. The income, payroll, and corporate taxes create a current tax disadvantage to American-made products because international agreements on trade (GATT) allow taxes like the FAIR tax and Euro-style VAT taxes to be stripped on exports at the border and applied to imports at the border but those agreements do not allow the same treatment with respect to income taxes.