Fair Tax

[Emmett]

Lets have everbody's thoughts on the FAIR TAX! Ready....Set...........Go!



My thought is start tomorrow!

 

[pegwinn]

I think the FT is dead until the end of the year (tax season). Still not enough fundamental outrage in America over the taxation.

 

[PsuedoGhost]

The Fair tax has been done one to many times. Not likely to be implemented anytime soon. Our tax code needs to be simplified, not completely done away with.

 

[pegwinn]

I disagree rabidly.

Where do you get "one too many times"? Far as I know, it's never been done before. And we need to scrap the current code completely as it is corrupted beyond any possible repair.

 

[insein]

Here's a discussion we had months ago on the topic.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25025&highlight=fair

 

[pegwinn]

I was gonna post links to past discussions, but it's a slow day. And the opener might've brought in something new....... ya never know.

 

[PsuedoGhost]

There is hardly anything fair about the fair tax. People who are wealthier tend to not spend their money on materialistic items as frequently as people who are trying to climb their way up to the top. Again we have the problem of disproportional taxation. For the people at the bottom, 30% sales tax is huge on a $77 sale, whereas for people at the top, the sales tax is almost irrelevant. Furthermore, we complain about how American values are dying because our population growth is stagnating. If the sales tax passes, there will be ZERO motivation for people to have more than two children, as they will just get butchered in consumption taxes.

 

[Gunny]

There is hardly anything fair about the fair tax. People who are wealthier tend to not spend their money on materialistic items as frequently as people who are trying to climb their way up to the top. Again we have the problem of disproportional taxation. For the people at the bottom, 30% sales tax is huge on a $77 sale, whereas for people at the top, the sales tax is almost irrelevant. Furthermore, we complain about how American values are dying because our population growth is stagnating. If the sales tax passes, there will be ZERO motivation for people to have more than two children, as they will just get butchered in consumption taxes.

I have to disagree. Income is irrelevant to "fair." It is hardly "fair" that the wealthy should carry a heavier tax burden than lower-income people. They earn their money, and a higher tax rate is nothing more than punishment for succeeding.

Nothing "fair" about that at all.

 

[William Joyce]

I'm against the fair tax. People should be able to attend large outdoor gatherings where crafts and foods are sold tax-free.

 

[pegwinn]

There is hardly anything fair about the fair tax. People who are wealthier tend to not spend their money on materialistic items as frequently as people who are trying to climb their way up to the top. Again we have the problem of disproportional taxation. For the people at the bottom, 30% sales tax is huge on a $77 sale, whereas for people at the top, the sales tax is almost irrelevant. Furthermore, we complain about how American values are dying because our population growth is stagnating. If the sales tax passes, there will be ZERO motivation for people to have more than two children, as they will just get butchered in consumption taxes.

Convenient. You overlooked the fact that a sales tax on materialistic items is by choice. You also overlooked the prebate. Yeah, the word for today is convenient

 

[Mr. P]

I'm against the fair tax. People should be able to attend large outdoor gatherings where crafts and foods are sold tax-free.

No sale...that's called a picnic.:rotflmao:

 

[007]

Fair tax, flat tax, I'm for either one, and totally scrap the current tax code.

But judging our governments movements on things that may not benefit them, like securing our border, and deporting the largest invasion from one country into another in the history of the world, don't look for anything to be done with taxes until the whole country is in a complete uproar about it. So long as people are relatively quite, nothing will be done. The lawyers in washington have had YEARS to write things into the current tax code that benefits them and them only. You think they're going to give all those years of crocked work up just like that? No way pal.

 

[PsuedoGhost]

Convenient. You overlooked the fact that a sales tax on materialistic items is by choice. You also overlooked the prebate. Yeah, the word for today is convenient

By choice... So if no one bought anything, then there would be no taxes... Right? I can't help but think that adding on such a huge sales tax would essentially gimp the economy. I also like how the "fair tax" taxes new goods, but does not tax used goods. In which case, a house or car that is used is a better buy than a new house on which you pay a ludicrous amount of taxes on.

 

[Mr. P]

By choice... So if no one bought anything, then there would be no taxes... Right? I can't help but think that adding on such a huge sales tax would essentially gimp the economy. I also like how the "fair tax" taxes new goods, but does not tax used goods. In which case, a house or car that is used is a better buy than a new house on which you pay a ludicrous amount of taxes on.

Just wondering if you have really looked into this? From your post it doesn't sound like you really have.

 

[Mr.Conley]

I think we need the progressive income tax. Not because of an ideological standpoint, but as a matter of practicality.

Look at it this way, the top 10-20% of the population pay a huge majority of the tax bill. If we lose all that money because of a smaller flat tax, or a tax on goods and services, then I'd imagine we'd see a big drop in the tax revenues. With two wars, a massive deficit, a huge military budget, and social security, Medicare, and Medicaid programs that we won't be able to get rid of for decades if ever, the last thing we need to do is reduce the tax revenues, otherwise we'll end up being evermore at the mercy of other states who have bought a lot of our debt. I know that only 1/3 of the debt is controlled by foriegners, but that's more than enough to start a chain reaction and throw the economy completely out of whack. That would be too dangerous, especially with the markets on edge the past few weeks. The only way we could enact a new tax system I see is my simulataniously having massive reductions in spending. The problem is that a lot of our budget is locked in (interest on current debt, social security, medicare). The only other areas we can really cut without destroying the entire federal government are the military, Homeland Security, along with huge cuts in spending and the dissolution of entire Federal agencies and money the federal government gives to the states . I know that a lot of people would love that, but it's impractical. Too many people have government jobs and too many people rely on government services for everything from welfare to regulation, to highways, and important statistic and national information. It's just not practical yet.

 

[Gunny]

I think we need the progressive income tax. Not because of an ideological standpoint, but as a matter of practicality.

Look at it this way, the top 10-20% of the population pay a huge majority of the tax bill. If we lose all that money because of a smaller flat tax, or a tax on goods and services, then I'd imagine we'd see a big drop in the tax revenues. With two wars, a massive deficit, a huge military budget, and social security, Medicare, and Medicaid programs that we won't be able to get rid of for decades if ever, the last thing we need to do is reduce the tax revenues, otherwise we'll end up being evermore at the mercy of other states who have bought a lot of our debt. I know that only 1/3 of the debt is controlled by foriegners, but that's more than enough to start a chain reaction and throw the economy completely out of whack. That would be too dangerous, especially with the markets on edge the past few weeks. The only way we could enact a new tax system I see is my simulataniously having massive reductions in spending. The problem is that a lot of our budget is locked in (interest on current debt, social security, medicare). The only other areas we can really cut without destroying the entire federal government are the military, Homeland Security, along with huge cuts in spending and the dissolution of entire Federal agencies and money the federal government gives to the states . I know that a lot of people would love that, but it's impractical. Too many people have government jobs and too many people rely on government services for everything from welfare to regulation, to highways, and important statistic and national information. It's just not practical yet.

What you call practicality I call legal robbery. I detest paying a higher percentage rate because I earn "more." I earn more because I go out and bust my butt to get it; yet. I am penalized for those that don't, for WHATEVER reason.

 

[pegwinn]

By choice... So if no one bought anything, then there would be no taxes... Right? Theoretically? Yeah, if no one bought any goods or services. Nada, Zip. Now since theoretical street isn't in the real world neighborhood, what was your point?

I can't help but think that adding on such a huge sales tax would essentially gimp the economy. Well that is a bold statement. Before I run up the BS flag, I will ask you expand on it.

I also like how the "fair tax" taxes new goods, but does not tax used goods. In which case, a house or car that is used is a better buy than a new house on which you pay a ludicrous amount of taxes on. Ludicrous is in the eye of the beholder. The point is to tax everything one time only. You haven't trotted out the poor and downtrodden yet. But isn't it good that since they are biggest consumer at flea markets and second hand stuff, they won't be taxed?

Tag, you're it.

 

[Mr.Conley]

What you call practicality I call legal robbery. I detest paying a higher percentage rate because I earn "more." I earn more because I go out and bust my butt to get it; yet. I am penalized for those that don't, for WHATEVER reason.

Oh, I agree with you, I'm just saying that is would be really painful to switch over to a flat tax.

 

[007]

Oh, I agree with you, I'm just saying that is would be really painful to switch over to a flat tax.

Why? I'd rather pay a flat 17%, instead of the 28% I pay now. A flat tax would be that... for eveyone. It's worked so well in Russia they gave money back.
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed032403.cfm

 

[pegwinn]

Ok, before anyone screams "SOURCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" I admit this is hearsay from my employer. We are an AutoGlass shop. We use only premium grade (OEM approved) replacement glass. He did a comparison of the number of taxes in the glass when we get it. It added up to about 37% when broken out. These taxes ranged from something to do with imports (LOF is British/Japanese) to road use and fuel taxes built in to cover shipping. Texas sales tax wasn't added in since the fairtax only covers the fed. And neither of us is an expert either, we were using invoices, list, our cost, and a bit of inside information to run the test. I'd go with a one time 23% any day.