Fair tax must be enacted incimentally

[Supposn]

I agree that it’s economically more desirable to tax consumption rather than income.

I am dubious of both the political and economic feasibility of replacing our entire, (both individual and corporate) income tax revenues with a consumption tax. It is certainly financially imprudent to attempt it in a single step. I advocate we transform our major sources of tax revenue incrementally.

Some suggest first eliminating individual income taxes and later attempt eliminating corporate income taxes. Mine is not the most popular opinion but I believe that eliminating individual and retaining corporate income taxes is economically illogical. I also believe that to whatever extent and rates we tax individuals’ incomes, we should continue to tax corporate incomes. Otherwise too many entrepreneurs will be further enabled to evade paying their fair share of income taxes.

I contend that after the enactment of one of the incremental tax source transferences, it will become obvious that the consumption tax is approaching an unacceptable tax rate. If that should occur, the government should interrupt or halt the transformation process. If I’m incorrect, (i.e. a consumption tax can replace all income tax revenue), then incremental tax source transference will accomplish complete replacement of all income taxes.

Those who insist upon passage of an act to accomplish the entire transference in a single step are insisting that an act to accomplish transference never be passed.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[edthecynic]

I agree that it’s economically more desirable to tax consumption rather than income.

I am dubious of both the political and economic feasibility of replacing our entire, (both individual and corporate) income tax revenues with a consumption tax. It is certainly financially imprudent to attempt it in a single step. I advocate we transform our major sources of tax revenue incrementally.

Some suggest first eliminating individual income taxes and later attempt eliminating corporate income taxes. Mine is not the most popular opinion but I believe that eliminating individual and retaining corporate income taxes is economically illogical. I also believe that to whatever extent and rates we tax individuals’ incomes, we should continue to tax corporate incomes. Otherwise too many entrepreneurs will be further enabled to evade paying their fair share of income taxes.

I contend that after the enactment of one of the incremental tax source transferences, it will become obvious that the consumption tax is approaching an unacceptable tax rate. If that should occur, the government should interrupt or halt the transformation process. If I’m incorrect, (i.e. a consumption tax can replace all income tax revenue), then incremental tax source transference will accomplish complete replacement of all income taxes.

Those who insist upon passage of an act to accomplish the entire transference in a single step are insisting that an act to accomplish transference never be passed.

Respectfully, Supposn

You seem to be contradicting yourself.
If a consumption tax is economically more desirable than an income tax, how could it be unacceptable?
Are you for or against a Fair tax?
If you are for it, what would you think of replacing all taxes with a corporate tax?

 

[Supposn]

You seem to be contradicting yourself.
If a consumption tax is economically more desirable than an income tax, how could it be unacceptable?
Are you for or against a Fair tax?
If you are for it, what would you think of replacing all taxes with a corporate tax?

EdTheCynic, the misspelled title should be “Fair tax must be enacted incrementally”. I advocate to the greatest feasible extent we replace federal income tax revenues with a sales tax.

I do not believe the U.S. Congress would imprudently enact transferring our major sources of federal revenue in a single step. I also strongly doubt that it is feasible to replace all (individual and corporate) income tax revenues with a sales tax.

I believe that after one of the incremental (tax source transference) steps, we will acknowledge that the sales tax is approaching an unacceptable tax rate. We will then delay or completely halt further tax source transference.

If my belief is incorrect, we will completely eliminate federal income taxes.

Corporate and individuals' income taxes are expenses for government and the direct taxpayers. Corporate income taxes are passed onto customers and are in affect an indirect sales tax.

I believe that to whatever extent and rates we tax individuals’ incomes, we should continue to tax corporate incomes. Otherwise too many entrepreneurs will be further enabled to evade paying their fair share of income taxes. That’s the only economic justification for corporate income taxes rather than a sales tax. It is also unfeasible to decrease or eliminate corporate income taxes and not grant similar consideration for individuals’ income taxes.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[edthecynic]

You seem to be contradicting yourself.
If a consumption tax is economically more desirable than an income tax, how could it be unacceptable?
Are you for or against a Fair tax?
If you are for it, what would you think of replacing all taxes with a corporate tax?

EdTheCynic, the misspelled title should be “Fair tax must be enacted incrementally”. I advocate to the greatest feasible extent we replace federal income tax revenues with a sales tax.

I do not believe the U.S. Congress would imprudently enact transferring our major sources of federal revenue in a single step. I also strongly doubt that it is feasible to replace all (individual and corporate) income tax revenues with a sales tax.

I believe that after one of the incremental (tax source transference) steps, we will acknowledge that the sales tax is approaching an unacceptable tax rate. We will then delay or completely halt further tax source transference.

If my belief is incorrect, we will completely eliminate federal income taxes.

Corporate and individuals' income taxes are expenses for government and the direct taxpayers. Corporate income taxes are passed onto customers and are in affect an indirect sales tax.

I believe that to whatever extent and rates we tax individuals’ incomes, we should continue to tax corporate incomes. Otherwise too many entrepreneurs will be further enabled to evade paying their fair share of income taxes. That’s the only economic justification for corporate income taxes rather than a sales tax. It is also unfeasible to decrease or eliminate corporate income taxes and not grant similar consideration for individuals’ income taxes.

Respectfully, Supposn

Corporate taxes are de facto consumption taxes since they are passed on to the consumer, but most Fair taxers are totally against corporate taxes.

 

[Supposn]

Corporate income taxes are as the name explicitly describes, is a direct tax upon a corporation and the amount of tax is based upon then corporation’s net income. The cost of resources that the corporation consumes is not DIRECTLY related to the amount of a corporation’s taxes. No income tax is de facto a consumption tax.

You’re correct to believe that the aggregate purchasers indirectly pay almost all corporate tax expenses, but they have no way of knowing how much they have indirectly contributed for corporate taxes imbedded within their individual or their annual purchases.

[A major advantage of the value added sales tax, (VAT) as opposed to the conventional sales tax method is the consumer is aware of exactly how much they directly paid for sales tax. There is no hidden intermediate transactions' sales taxes hidden within their purchases. The ultimate consumer of all goods and services that were purchased within the taxing nation are the only purchasers that eventually pay all VAT taxes collected. Intermediate sellers receive tax credit for the VAT they paid and they pass on to the government only the net difference of the VAT they collected].

All though in almost all cases the customers eventually pay all corporate expenses, corporate income taxes are not a consumption tax.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

FYI:
Sales taxes are not collected for goods delivered or services that are performed beyond the taxing nation's borders.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toronado3800]

So for the consumption tax do I understand it would be something like 14% of the money you spend towards your Hummer goes to the IRS?

Or essentially whatever income tax is now plus whatever sales tax is?

 

[Supposn]

Toranado, I suppose you’re making a point? Your message is obtuse.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Neubarth]

I favor a flat Federal income tax. Fifty percent of everything in excess of $30,000 a year per wage earner. The states can take the other fifty percent if they feel so led. It is hard to collect sales tax and VAT taxes have been proven over and over again to thwart purchases in the country that foolishly imposes ithem. Stay away from increases in corporate income tax. That would totally destroy the remaining economy in what was once a great country.

 

[Toronado3800]

Toranado, I suppose you’re making a point? Your message is obtuse.
Respectfully, Supposn

I probably typed too quickly.

So the tax is basically going to hit folks WHEN they spend their money not during the year they earn it.

It should simplify the tax code at the very least.

 

[Smartt33]

I agree that it’s economically more desirable to tax consumption rather than income.

I am dubious of both the political and economic feasibility of replacing our entire, (both individual and corporate) income tax revenues with a consumption tax. It is certainly financially imprudent to attempt it in a single step. I advocate we transform our major sources of tax revenue incrementally.

Some suggest first eliminating individual income taxes and later attempt eliminating corporate income taxes. Mine is not the most popular opinion but I believe that eliminating individual and retaining corporate income taxes is economically illogical. I also believe that to whatever extent and rates we tax individuals’ incomes, we should continue to tax corporate incomes. Otherwise too many entrepreneurs will be further enabled to evade paying their fair share of income taxes.

I contend that after the enactment of one of the incremental tax source transferences, it will become obvious that the consumption tax is approaching an unacceptable tax rate. If that should occur, the government should interrupt or halt the transformation process. If I’m incorrect, (i.e. a consumption tax can replace all income tax revenue), then incremental tax source transference will accomplish complete replacement of all income taxes.

Those who insist upon passage of an act to accomplish the entire transference in a single step are insisting that an act to accomplish transference never be passed.

Respectfully, Supposn

Obama has now increased the size of our government by setting up a committee to decide what is a fair price, and what are fait practices for the "Hellth" care program. Who can choose what is fair? Give me a break.

Flat tax for everyone will be as cl,ose as we can get. I am for that. However, who sets the ammount that will apply to everyone?

 

[Supposn]

I favor a flat Federal income tax. Fifty percent of everything in excess of $30,000 a year per wage earner. The states can take the other fifty percent if they feel so led. It is hard to collect sales tax and VAT taxes have been proven over and over again to thwart purchases in the country that foolishly imposes ithem. Stay away from increases in corporate income tax. That would totally destroy the remaining economy in what was once a great country.

Neubarth, a federal 50% tax rate upon personal net income with a $30,000 deduction from taxable income? That’s what you're seriously advocating?

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

Obama has now increased the size of our government by setting up a committee to decide what is a fair price, and what are fait practices for the "Hellth" care program. Who can choose what is fair? Give me a break.

Smartt,
am I correct to that your message reflects your dissatisfaction with Obama because you believe he has done something you oppose?

I’m dissatisfied with Obama because he has too often retreated from his avowed position when faced by any voices of opposition. Too much of what little he’s done has been contrary to what he previously advocated. He’s done too little.

What explicitly is the Obama “committee to decide what is a fair price, and what are fair practices for (which?) Healthcare program” that you are referring too?

Has the U.S. Congress passed an act that I’m unaware of? Is the committee you refer to within the administrative branch of our government to explore possible government policies? If that’s the case, I’m pleased if a president seeks better advice.

Too often presidents have been more dependent upon the advice of lobbyists with vested interests. Too often the quality of that e advice was gauged by a lobbyist’s ability to provide campaign funds for the next election.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

Flat tax for everyone will be as cl,ose as we can get. I am for that. However, who sets the ammount that will apply to everyone?

Smartt, tax rates are generally expressed as a proportion of whatever amount is designated as the tax-base. Thus as the amount of a tax-base is modified due to any cause (including modified purchasing power of the U.S. dollar), the amount of the tax stays abreast with the tax-base’s amount.

When bills are drafted, congress often seeks the opinions and evaluations provided by the U.S. Congressional Budget Office, (i.e. CBO). The White house has their U.S. Office of Management and Budget, (OMB) to advise them.

Both the CBO and the OMB are staffed by non-partisan accountants and economists.

The drafting of laws and regulations has often been described as analogous to sausage making. We don’t always want to confront what’s used and from where it came from before it was included within the sausages. Certainly politics and money are involved.

Respectfully, Supposn