Jake

Our present tax system is much more compulsory than the FairTax would be, you must admit. Think about it this way: You cannot take home your entire paycheck, save as much as you can, earn as much interest as you can, and then pay the tax collector on April 15th. Under FairTax, you can do that, save as much income as you could possibly want to save. You'll only have to pay the tax when you buy something. Saying that this tax is 100% voluntary is a hyperbole, sure, but come on, it's nitpicking, Plains. The FairTax system is the best system when it comes to giving people the most amount of control over their own money. And that's not a hyperbole.

Again, I don't think this really effects the merits of the FairTax. The FairTax is trying to be revenue-neautral, so they're trying to raise the same amount of money a year as our present system does. Finding out what the National Sales tax would have to be is pretty hard to figure out!

Both the 23% and the 30% numbers are right, it just depends on how you look at it. In a 23% figure, you would only be paying 1% more than you do today because of the 22% embedded taxes. Under a 30% system, we pay 7% more than what we pay today. That sounds about right.

The "New IRS" would be so completely different than the current one that the comparisons are redundant. This is an agency that collects taxes from just about every income-earning, property-owning citizen of America, has to verify all of the exemptions and deductions that people claim, has to chase down people who haven't paid their taxes, etc. The "New IRS" would mostly just be going to businesses and collecting the sales tax that they have collected.

All three of those Lies, Plains, are pretty petty. You haven't given anything that says that income, property, and death taxes are better than a simple consumption tax. That is the heart of the issue, and you're fritting away at the branches...come on now...see if you can strike at the root

__________________

Trocisp

I'll strike at the root.


As you can clearly see, while the people from 0-15,000 dollars per year will have more money in their pocket, people from 15,000 - 200,000 ("middle" to "upper-middle" class) will be paying more in taxes, where people who make above 200,000 ("upper" class) will be paying substansially less.

Graphs from Chapter 9 of the President's Advisory Panel for Federal Tax Reform's Final Report.


This outlines, in relative detail, the total amount each income bracket would (give or take a % or two) pay. Keep in mind, by raising taxes on the 15,000-20,000 dollar a year income group, you're raising the income taxes on... the people who need their money the most. People making less than 15k a year normally aren't supporting children, but people making 15k-20k a year are more likely to be single parents.

"If they don't understand words... show 'em the pretty pictures." - Winston Churchill

Jake

The poor are going to be paying less taxes than ever before, the rich have a moderate cut also. Why should the rich be taxed the heaviest anyway? Did they earn their money any less?

Oh right, income is distributed, not earned.

Trocisp

Because it's the lesser of two evils, to tell you the truth.


I'd rather tax the guy who makes 200k or more (up to bill gates level or rich-ness) a bit more than I'd like to tax a single mom making 35k a year. But if you like raising taxes on single parents, and lowering them for Big Business owners, CEO's and people who can in general afford to pay a bit more in taxes... I understand.

troublemaker_42

Yup, I gotta agree. As it stands now, the rich get enough tax cuts. Why allow that cycle to continue? Sometimes "Fair" isn't the same as "evenly distributed" . If we're going to fix whats broken, lets actually fix it....not allow the same cycle to continue under a new name.

__________________
Ted Nugent: "To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic."


If total government control equals safety, why are prisons so dangerous?

captainReefer

Nixon did a pretty good job of creating the DEA and starting the drug war.

WingedYoshi

Nixon is the reason /b/ exists, and the reason there is a need for 4chan.

Seriously, Nixon... why the hell did amercia vote for him, and how the hell'd he get in? Who runs this country? This tells me there is something hidden in the background... something we're not supposed to see.

Jake

Oh man I gotta get back to the Fair Tax debate now that this is a bumped thread....

Is it 23% or 30%?
It depends on how you look at the numbers. What most people fail to realize is that the FairTax will be figured as an inclusive tax, not an exclusive one, which is what we're familer with. When we pay a 5% state sales tax, it is added on to the cost of the item. When we have an inclusive tax, it is part of the cost. A $100 football jersey under a 23% inclusive rate would mean that you pay $77 for the jersey, and $23 for the tax. If you look at it in the exclusive way, it looks like you bought a $77 jersey, and paid $23 in taxes, which would be a rate near 30%.

It's just semantics....

People who don't usually pay taxes will help you out
The 4 million visitors to America will be paying into our tax system. We will be taxing 300 million Americans instead of just the ones who earn income. The Government will pay it's taxes too...

The "Poor"
People with low incomes will not pay any income tax, they get to keep their entire paycheck. Even if they don't pay income taxes as is, most people do not file for exception anyway. (Same thing could be said for the Home Interest Deduction: Most people don't file it anyway, so there is no pain getting rid of it). So they are paying 20% of their paychecks to the government (even if they do get it back in April).

Put yourself in the shoes of a poor person and tell me what you don't like about the FairTax. you get 100% of your paycheck. The sales tax for "essential goods" will be given to you every month so that you don't have to pay that. The only time the poor people get socked by the FairTax is when they spend money on things they shouldn't spend money on. Read again: The food that your family needs to survive will not be taxed.

Yeah, they'll pay proportionally more of their income in taxes when they buy cars and cell phones....but they shouldn't be buying those things if it's so hard to feed your family....

Growth, and the return of trillions
After the implication of FairTax, most economists predict the economy will double in the first two years. Approximately $6 trillion that are in offshore acounts will come back to our country. Our country will be the new "tax haven." When the trillions come back, they will work in our economy, improving the value of our stocks and bonds. For businesses, enterpreneurs, we are one of the most punishing countries. Imagine all of the "tax impact planners" could be put to better use. We spend hundreds of billions filing our taxes. Businesses have to weigh tax consequences before every decision. The businesses that ran away from our punishing tax system may come back, and companies from other tax-punishing countries would start opening up in America. The FairTax is SO GOOD

Definition of Tax
to impose a burden on; put a strain on; "to tax one's strength"..... Why tax the act of making money, being productive? We should tax the act of spending money on things that are non-essential (remember the prebate checks coming every month will cover essential goods). Taxing income is punishing good behavior. Why don't we switch it to start punishing something a little bit worse like conspicuous consumption?

Trocisp

Oh man, we already had this discussion, Jake.

It's not 'just semantics.' It's 'just' a 30% tax. If you pay 100 dollars for something under the new system, 30 dollars goes to the Tax Agency. (Because "No IRS" is a big seller - let me tell you this, there's still going to be a Tax Agency) $70 goes to the Jersey. This isn't an issue of semantics.

'People visiting our country' will stop completely. They already payed tax when they earned the money in their country, why would they want to come to this country and pay that same tax again?

The vast majority of people who are eligibleto receive returns from the government do.

Did you think I would just accept your statement as a fact? It's most certainly not. It's quite the opposite, it's an unfact.
Okay...

It's shitty.


As a person making 15,000 a year, I now pay 9 times as much in taxes as I used to.
As a person making between 15k and 30k, I pay .2% less tax than I would have otherwise...

In fact, the only economic bracket it seems to benefit is 200,000 or more income per year... golly gee that doesn't seem poor to me!

"You're poor, you're not allowed to buy this."

Did I get that right?

Yep, I think I got it right... Poor people shouldn't be allowed to have cellphones or cars!

What "most" economists?

I've read, almost universally, opposing viewpoints on that.

The american Economy will die if we do this. Retirement age people will moved out of country, why not? I have $1,000,000 in the bank and I can spend it here - I'll have $700,000 worth of money to spend here. OR, I can move to Canada/Mexico and have $900,000 or more to spend. Which would you choose?

First, you misrepresent the definition of "tax." You're using the word in a completely different context.

Emphasis mine. Red is the definition you used, which is not applicable in this situation. Bold is the proper definition of taxes.



Second, we don't 'punish' earning or spending. We take the least objectionable course of action - we tax that which doesn't adversely effect our economy or peoples.

Third, you obviously lack understanding of the way the economy works. People will strive to get as much as they can, for as little as they can. If they're born in the US, work here until they're 70 and have a $400,000 nest egg, why would they stay in the USA to spend their money (and get less product in return for their spending), when they could move to Canada with far lower cost of living? People already do it, moving to East-asia for the extremely low cost of living - the only reason it's not more prevaliant is because it's so far away. If cost of living goes up by 30% (or, if you make/live less than 15k a year, taxes go up by 900%), what makes you think that people would stay in the USA? It's fucking ridiculous.


Fourth, you're arguing to support an idea, and anytime someone argues from that standpoint it's almost impossible to convince them otherwise - no matter how completely (and obviously) incorrect they are. On the other hand, if you would argue from the standpoint that is supported by facts, and base your opinions on facts rather than trying to find facts that support your ideas you would see, very quickly, that FairTax is anything but Fair.

Jake

I got it when I get off work, Tro. you're gonna get owned, dude.