Flat Tax vs Fair Tax

[RDD_1210]

It would be effective because revenue would increase.

I don't see how one can argue otherwise after all isn't it the purpose of taxes to raise revenue?

Why do you assume simplicity would not be effective? Our current bloated unfathomable complicated system doesn't seem to work very well does it?

Increase off the backs of the poor and middle class. How is that productive?

The lowest tax bracket is already 10% so I don't see the problem.

No one with an income should be exempt from the income tax.

So again, how is decreasing someones wallet by 10% productive when they are already struggling as it is?

 

[akelch]

The fair tax is regressive and will make the rich richer. It will have a negative impact on the middle class and working poor and is the final step necessary to transform our nation into a Plutocracy.

Think for a moment about percentages. What percentage of income does a millionaire spend on products (and services?) and what percentage does a middle class family spend. An individual or a family can only buy so many things. I hope that's clear.

I'm glad you brought this up...and I would agree with you if it were true. But the Fair Tax has a prebate system built in. This is how it works...every house hold (depending on the size) will get a check from the government each month for the same amount. A house hold of 4 will get around $500. This will off set some of the cost of the taxes that month. $500 for a poor family is a lot but $500 for a millionaire is pocket change. So in the long run the rich will pay more of the tax then the poor.

If you spend your money wisely you could be paying very little if any taxes.

I don't understand.

I earn $1 million dollars a year and pay a 10% tax; this leaves me $900,000; you earn $100,000 a year, pay 10% and get to keep $90,000. We both get $500 from the government. Is that correct?

If money is power, you would lose as would the greatest number of our citizens.

Correct

Though I am confused with your last statement
"If money is power, you would lose as would the greatest number of our citizens"

 

[Some Guy]

Where does the term "fair" come from in "fair tax?" In that you'd only be paying taxes on what you consume?

The left's argument for raising taxes on the rich is that they're hoarding money for no other reason than to hoard it, and that money should be put back in the economy. If that's true, a fair tax would only exacerbate it as the rich could simply not buy really nice things and thus avoid a tax burden. They'd theoretically already have their nice house, car, etc... stretch the car a few more miles, and when you want a new one, get a Ford Fusion instead of a BMW 5 series.

 

[akelch]

I see the 10% flat tax being thrown around....is this the actual amount suggested or is it just for simplicity?

Because from my perspective it will more like 20%+.

 

[akelch]

Where does the term "fair" come from in "fair tax?" In that you'd only be paying taxes on what you consume?

The left's argument for raising taxes on the rich is that they're hoarding money for no other reason than to hoard it, and that money should be put back in the economy. If that's true, a fair tax would only exacerbate it as the rich could simply not buy really nice things and thus avoid a tax burden. They'd theoretically already have their nice house, car, etc... stretch the car a few more miles, and when you want a new one, get a Ford Fusion instead of a BMW 5 series.

The "Fair" was a name the supporters gave it...nothing else. You can call it by it's bill name, HR 25.

They argument is about investing and yes they are not.

But how can the rich not spend money and why would they not want to? The cost of the products would equal out to be the same plus they would have no capital gains tax and their whole paycheck.

So why would they not spend it? Would you? Do they not have bills to pay?

Even in economic down turns consumer spend has stand stable compared to the changing of average wages.

 

[DiamondDave]

I prefer a flat tax.

Less moving parts more simplicity and less cost to oversee.

A 10% flat tax on the first dollar of income regardless of its source would bring in more money than our current income tax and cost billions less to enforce. We could use the savings to offset debt or to shore up safety nets.

As for Social Security I say leave the contributions as they are but let people own their own accounts. People would retire with more money and we could cut administration costs thereby increasing net revenue which then could be used to lower the income tax even more.

The fair tax with it's "prebates" and other calculations is cumbersome.

Right on time....just strengthens what I just said. These ideas are liked because they are simple. Not because they are effective or productive.

It would be effective because revenue would increase.

I don't see how one can argue otherwise after all isn't it the purpose of taxes to raise revenue?

Why do you assume simplicity would not be effective? Our current bloated unfathomable complicated system doesn't seem to work very well does it?

realdumbdummy is against the 'simple' flat tax because it cannot be manipulated in a way to make someone else pay for more while a group he likes more pays for less because of his subjective feelings of how it affects someone's ease or difficulty in living... equality is only 'fair' when it benefits him or his cause... so unequal treatment of others is ok when he or his cause is benefited as a result

 

[RDD_1210]

Right on time....just strengthens what I just said. These ideas are liked because they are simple. Not because they are effective or productive.

It would be effective because revenue would increase.

I don't see how one can argue otherwise after all isn't it the purpose of taxes to raise revenue?

Why do you assume simplicity would not be effective? Our current bloated unfathomable complicated system doesn't seem to work very well does it?

realdumbdummy is against the 'simple' flat tax because it cannot be manipulated in a way to make someone else pay for more while a group he likes more pays for less because of his subjective feelings of how it affects someone's ease or difficulty in living... equality is only 'fair' when it benefits him or his cause... so unequal treatment of others is ok when he or his cause is benefited as a result

realdumbdummy.

Well done. Really, that high level of intellect that it took to come up with that really established yourself as a truly insightful thinker. Bravo good sir....Bravo.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I'm glad you brought this up...and I would agree with you if it were true. But the Fair Tax has a prebate system built in. This is how it works...every house hold (depending on the size) will get a check from the government each month for the same amount. A house hold of 4 will get around $500. This will off set some of the cost of the taxes that month. $500 for a poor family is a lot but $500 for a millionaire is pocket change. So in the long run the rich will pay more of the tax then the poor.

If you spend your money wisely you could be paying very little if any taxes.

I don't understand.

I earn $1 million dollars a year and pay a 10% tax; this leaves me $900,000; you earn $100,000 a year, pay 10% and get to keep $90,000. We both get $500 from the government. Is that correct?

If money is power, you would lose as would the greatest number of our citizens.

Correct

Though I am confused with your last statement
"If money is power, you would lose as would the greatest number of our citizens"

IMO we would end up with a caste system, the very wealty would in short order accumulate greater and greater amounts of wealth and in doing so be able to set the agenda for the country. Of course they pretty much do today, but why make it easier?

 

[akelch]

How?

 

[DiamondDave]

It would be effective because revenue would increase.

I don't see how one can argue otherwise after all isn't it the purpose of taxes to raise revenue?

Why do you assume simplicity would not be effective? Our current bloated unfathomable complicated system doesn't seem to work very well does it?

realdumbdummy is against the 'simple' flat tax because it cannot be manipulated in a way to make someone else pay for more while a group he likes more pays for less because of his subjective feelings of how it affects someone's ease or difficulty in living... equality is only 'fair' when it benefits him or his cause... so unequal treatment of others is ok when he or his cause is benefited as a result

realdumbdummy.

Well done. Really, that high level of intellect that it took to come up with that really established yourself as a truly insightful thinker. Bravo good sir....Bravo.

Yet the rest of the statement pegs you perfectly... hence why you said nothing about it

 

[RDD_1210]

realdumbdummy is against the 'simple' flat tax because it cannot be manipulated in a way to make someone else pay for more while a group he likes more pays for less because of his subjective feelings of how it affects someone's ease or difficulty in living... equality is only 'fair' when it benefits him or his cause... so unequal treatment of others is ok when he or his cause is benefited as a result

realdumbdummy.

Well done. Really, that high level of intellect that it took to come up with that really established yourself as a truly insightful thinker. Bravo good sir....Bravo.

Yet the rest of the statement pegs you perfectly... hence why you said nothing about it

Sure I have, plenty of times. It gets us nowhere, so why bother repeating myself? I'll let you come up with creative names for me and pretend like you've accomplished something.

 

[DiamondDave]

realdumbdummy.

Well done. Really, that high level of intellect that it took to come up with that really established yourself as a truly insightful thinker. Bravo good sir....Bravo.

Yet the rest of the statement pegs you perfectly... hence why you said nothing about it

Sure I have, plenty of times. It gets us nowhere, so why bother repeating myself? I'll let you come up with creative names for me and pretend like you've accomplished something.

And you 'say' lots of things about it.. which shows your continual support of unequal treatment of others when it benefits you or your cause, and demand equal treatment when it benefits you or your cause... which is about as hypocritical as you can get.... The only thing you have accomplished is to show your greed and envy of others to justify your will to have them pay for things you want and to have them pay to support those who you want supported... all the while screaming that you are for equality in treatment by government..

At least you could be honest and state that you simply want and support a Robin Hood inspired system that is by nature and definition unequal in treatment and subjective in nature

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

We all agree the tax system is broke. The question is how do we fix it or do we replace it with something else?

Do you support a Flat Tax or the Fair Tax plans and why?

The Flat Tax is a wet dream of billionaires like Forbes. nuf said


Fair Tax plans? Progressive taxation is the only fair and reasonable way to go without killing off the middle class and looking out for those left behind.

 

[gallantwarrior]

I would lean toward a Flat Tax although I would want to know more about the exemptions for families.

There's your slippery slope. Start with exemptions for one group and before you know it, there will be exemptions for all kinds of things.

 

[DiamondDave]

I would lean toward a Flat Tax although I would want to know more about the exemptions for families.

There's your slippery slope. Start with exemptions for one group and before you know it, there will be exemptions for all kinds of things.

Correct... you start with exemptions and exceptions, and it becomes BY DEFINITION a progressive tax with unequal treatment

 

[AmyNation]

Nobody really wants to change the current tax system, too much money and power tied up into it.

 

[Some Guy]

So why would they not spend it? Would you? Do they not have bills to pay?

I get where you're coming from. Why have money if you're not going to spend it? Just saying though, that's the left's argument for why the rich need to be taxed more. They have all this money and they're not spending it. Not starting new companies to employ people, not buying new cars, boats, mansions, whatever. If you assume that argument is true, a consumption tax makes it even easier to hoard money; you just don't spend as much.

Another argument against it, from the "we need to tax the rich as much as possible" standpoint is that a gallon of milk would have the X% consumption tax on it regardless of who's buying it. So, if i'm taking home $50k, a gallon of milk is $3 and the fair/consumption tax is 30%, i'm paying 90 cents on my milk just like the billionaire is paying 90 cents on the milk as well. Not "fair."

I would think this consumption/fair tax would be easy to avoid in the service industry. Paying cash would be saving the buyer a lot more money than it does today, and if anyone has plenty of cash, it's the rich.

 

[Skull Pilot]

What about Social security and Medicare? Would we not need to file for them? Plus, if you pay me in cash there is no record of me working for you, thus the same as the current income tax. Only the ones that are productive and honest pay. Drug dealers and the underground economy will pay nothing.

There will always be an underground economy under any system.

In the sales tax scenario all one has to do is sell an item for cash and not record the sale.

People will always cheat the system just as they have always done.

All the sales tax system does in to put more burden on the business community to act as a tax collector.

The burden is already on business to collect taxes and on us to file. Under the Fair tax businesses would have to file what they made and the taxes they collected. They can not claim high profits without paying the tax. Plus, not all businesses will have to worry about it. Business to business transactions are not taxed.

Under the flat tax they have to file for every employee and what they paid that employee. Hope you don't have high turnover. Don't think that the employee will bare no responsibility for this....they will have to file too.

Sorry... But I'll stick with the Fair Tax.

BTW, estimated cost of sending out the prebate is $180 billion a year and it is factored into the 23% Fair Tax.

180 billion a year in partial operating costs and you think that's a good deal?

The 10% flat tax would cost nothing to collect. Employers already withhold taxes and send them into the government for each employee. If 10% is taken off the top every week there would be no need for employees to file as they would be paid up at the end of the year.

If you are self employed your situation does not change, you file like you always did but the calculation is easier. 10% of your net and you're done.

Personally I don't believe employers should have to act as tax collectors for the government It would be best if each person had to pay their own taxes every quarter.

 

[DiamondDave]

Nobody really wants to change the current tax system, too much money and power tied up into it.

Power thru pandering is indeed tied up in it.. it is inherent in a progressive system.. which is why a progressive system should be done away with... but because of the power, they won't... catch 22

 

[Skull Pilot]

Nobody really wants to change the current tax system, too much money and power tied up into it.

Nobody in power wants to change the current tax system which is exactly why it needs to be changed.