Serious Question. What makes a "fair tax" fair?

[lizzie]

Okay. What exactly am I getting from my payroll tax?

unemployment insurance, social security insurance and medicare insurance.

Then the first quote is not a true statement if I never collect unemployment and have no need for medicare. I am forced to pay for something I have no intention of and truly may never use.

The purpose of those plans is so that you have some income upon retirement and health insurance upon retirement. Frankly I have far more faith in myself to provide those things for myself than I do the federal government. I can do far better on my retirement in the private market. So what that means is the people I am actually paying taxes for are the people who are not willing to plan for their own futures.

But regardless of whether or not you ever collect it, it is a required tax.

 

[loosecannon]

Okay. What exactly am I getting from my payroll tax?

unemployment insurance, social security insurance and medicare insurance.

Then the first quote is not a true statement if I never collect unemployment and have no need for medicare. I am forced to pay for something I have no intention of and truly may never use.

welcome to the concept of insurance.

 

[Bern80]

unemployment insurance, social security insurance and medicare insurance.

Then the first quote is not a true statement if I never collect unemployment and have no need for medicare. I am forced to pay for something I have no intention of and truly may never use.

welcome to the concept of insurance.

Part of the 'concept of insurance' is NOT that the fed requires me to purchase it.

 

[Bern80]

unemployment insurance, social security insurance and medicare insurance.

Then the first quote is not a true statement if I never collect unemployment and have no need for medicare. I am forced to pay for something I have no intention of and truly may never use.

The purpose of those plans is so that you have some income upon retirement and health insurance upon retirement. Frankly I have far more faith in myself to provide those things for myself than I do the federal government. I can do far better on my retirement in the private market. So what that means is the people I am actually paying taxes for are the people who are not willing to plan for their own futures.

But regardless of whether or not you ever collect it, it is a required tax.

Ummm duh. The original discussion way back when was whether the taxes were fair. Since I can do better on my own on both a retirment fund and health insurance the 'benefit' of the taxes is of no use to me. So who actually is benefitting? That would be those that can't help themselves and those that refused to plan for their futures. So explain to me, who has planned for his, how it fair for me to pay for those that haven't.

 

[shintao]

I think a fair "federal" tax is just a set percentage set on consumer goods. No income taxes, no deductions or tax loopholes PERIOD!!!!!!!!

Then let states do as they wish to support their states. That way you can chose between 50 states where to work and live. Obviously Limbaugh had a problem with NY.

 

[shintao]

Then the first quote is not a true statement if I never collect unemployment and have no need for medicare. I am forced to pay for something I have no intention of and truly may never use.

The purpose of those plans is so that you have some income upon retirement and health insurance upon retirement. Frankly I have far more faith in myself to provide those things for myself than I do the federal government. I can do far better on my retirement in the private market. So what that means is the people I am actually paying taxes for are the people who are not willing to plan for their own futures.

But regardless of whether or not you ever collect it, it is a required tax.

Ummm duh. The original discussion way back when was whether the taxes were fair. Since I can do better on my own on both a retirment fund and health insurance the 'benefit' of the taxes is of no use to me. So who actually is benefitting? That would be those that can't help themselves and those that refused to plan for their futures. So explain to me, who has planned for his, how it fair for me to pay for those that haven't.

Let me ask, would you say the 3 million unemployed planned on that to happen? And why did it happen? Some point to Gov. So if it is gov.s fault, then it is gov.s problem to make a bad situation right. Again, you chose Capitalism that dictates a top & bottom ~ Always, so shouldn't you feel a responsibility for those you fucked over before retirement?

 

[Bern80]

Let me ask, would you say the 3 million unemployed planned on that to happen? And why did it happen? Some point to Gov. So if it is gov.s fault, then it is gov.s problem to make a bad situation right. Again, you chose Capitalism that dictates a top & bottom ~ Always, so shouldn't you feel a responsibility for those you fucked over before retirement?

Well your premise is wrong for starters. Yes there is a top and bottom where wealth is concerned with capitilism, but getting to the top does not require screwing over the bottom. In fact doing that your business will probably not survive very long. So no, I'm not screwing anyone over by obtaining wealth.

It isn't about what you forsee happening or not happening. You might not forsee your job going away. You might not forsee a major illness. What you know however, is that those ocurrences are possible. As such there isn't any excuse to not plan for them accordingly.

As far as where the blame goes, it can be pointed a lot of places accurately. The problem is when people look to blame someone there is one place those people never look; right back at themselves. That is undeniablly where part of the blame lies where our economy and health care issues are concerned. People that were overly confident about their job security. People that 'bought' houses they couldn't afford. People who didn't educate themselves about their mortgages. People who didn't take care of themselves from a health perspective.

Big, big picture there are two problems that I see. There isn't enough education about money in this country. Not enough people understand it and not enough of it is taught. Two, people don't hold themselves accountable for their financial position or really their own well being. Getting a job is not the only way to make money. The problem is the bulk of our population is brought up thinking that is how life is suppossed to go. Get an education, get a job, hope it's secure, retire. Personally I believe life is meant to be lived to the fullest. The reality is that costs money. But if my goal is to live life and it's a short time we have to do it I would just as soon not spend a third of it working (especially when another third is spent sleeping for most). So how else can I generate income? Believe me there are other ways then working 9-5, 40-50 years of your life, that do work if people are willing to put in the time and learn how money works and how it can work for you instead of you working for it. But, until people are willing to look in the mirror and ask first how they themselves are contributing to the problem, it is unlikely much is going to change.

 

[grokmaster]

I'm genuinely curious - no one ever explained why a "fair tax" consumption tax is "fairer" than an income tax.

Thoughts?

The Fairtax is a tax on WEALTH, not income. Families would not be taxed on necessities, but other items like TV's ,Gulfstreams, etc. would be taxed at about 23-24%.

Now, before you start sqwauking about the rate, know that about 20-25% of the cost of EVERTHING is imbedded taxes, under the current taxt system; those would be gone,and the price of items would be essentially unchanged. What would change is that the retailer would send 23-24% of the money collected to the Fed.

It would be a tremendous boon to the economy , in general.

Learn more at Fairtax.com

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I'm genuinely curious - no one ever explained why a "fair tax" consumption tax is "fairer" than an income tax.

Thoughts?

The Fairtax is a tax on WEALTH, not income. Families would not be taxed on necessities, but other items like TV's ,Gulfstreams, etc. would be taxed at about 23-24%.

Now, before you start sqwauking about the rate, know that about 20-25% of the cost of EVERTHING is imbedded taxes, under the current taxt system; those would be gone,and the price of items would be essentially unchanged. What would change is that the retailer would send 23-24% of the money collected to the Fed.

It would be a tremendous boon to the economy , in general.

Learn more at Fairtax.com

I know what the FairTax is.

I'm asking what makes it more "fair" than income tax.

 

[NYcarbineer]

My question is,

whose taxes would be lower under the fair tax, and thus,

whose would be higher?

And please don't tell us everyone's taxes would be lower.

We're not all idiots.

 

[Londoner]

I'm genuinely curious - no one ever explained why a "fair tax" consumption tax is "fairer" than an income tax.

Thoughts?

Because almost half the population pays nothing in fed income taxes, they don't have any personal stake in the well-being of the country as a whole, and generally speaking, people don't appreciate what they don't earn in one way or another. Paying consumption taxes makes everyone cognizant of what they personally, and we, as a country, are doing fiscally. Iow, it makes them think more responsibly about their own part that they play in society.

This is the best explanation I've heard.

It would make even more sense during the high wage-&-benefit postwar years. This is when you had a huge & well-paid middle class.

Unfortunately, the GM job model got replaced by the Walmart job model. Add globalization and the flight of jobs to lower labor markets, and you have very little left to tax in the lower brackets. We have created a working class making under 20K (if they're lucky)... sans health care & retirement, and lacking affordable education.

Reducing the cost of labor has translated into massive profits for the wealthy, who now make vastly more than the lower classes (compared to the 50s-60s, when there was a great compression of income). Secondly, by reducing capital gains to the 15% rate, the wealthy (many of whom make more from wall street than wages) now pay substantially lower taxes than the lower class suckers who can't afford politicians.

If you want the working class to have some skin in the game, you need to restore their compensation. Otherwise you'll be trying to squeeze water from a stone.

 

[Londoner]

There isn't enough education about money in this country. Not enough people understand it and not enough of it is taught.

This is by design. We have a consumption economy which is being kept afloat not by solid jobs, but reckless credit and bubbles. If people were smarter about money, they would do what they are doing now: not buy things they cannot afford. The result would be a recession, followed by a massive economic contraction, and severe job loss. We are finally living in a post fake-credit world. The economy is finally shrinking to accommodate how little money the middle class actually has (and had). [This is the recession that Clinton should have had before he was saved by the tech bubble, and Bush should have had before he was saved by the housing bubble ] We are finally paying the price for 30 years of easy money policies.

If you taught people about money, they'd realize that the American economy can no longer support middle class consumption (because the solid jobs are gone, i.e., the war on labor, the final frontier of profit, has been won). If you told the truth, people would have to face the deep structural flaws of the American economy, and this would lead to even less confidence, less investment, and more thrift (paradox of).

America has been supporting the largest consumption economy on earth not with solid fundamentals (jobs and good investments), but easy credit and bogus-speculative investments.

People don't get it. When too much money gets trapped on top, and too little money is circulating through the real economy (because the middle class has lost their solid jobs), you have a double whammy, the perfect storm:

1) Wall Street has to invent speculative garbage to satisfy the excess hunger for higher returns that comes with excess capital.

2) The financial industry has to invent ever more complex debt instruments to give consumers enough money to support the real economy.

That is, you need more and more fake stimuli to make up for the structural distribution failure -- so you lower rates to criminal levels, and you lend money into the economy on the backs of morons, illegal aliens, and corpses. You even hawk your homes, turning them into ATMs. Anything to make up for the fact that, contra-Reagan, the money never trickled down into the middle class, i.e., they don't have the solid jobs necessary to support consumption.

Again:

The wealthy are given a Wall Street casino (i.e., too much money chasing too few investments leads to the creation of speculative garbage), and the poor are given credit cards and ALT-A's (because their once solid wages and benefits have been transferred upward as profits... leaving them with insufficient money to drive consumption. And no president wants to face the political consequences of a failed economy, so they resort to easy money tricks).

The postwar economy, designed around underwriting middle class demand through tax-&-labor policy and a wealth of government programs, worked. Reaganomics failed to understand what would happen once you got rid of the entitlement-fed middle class. You would need more and more credit/bubbles to stimulate demand. Eventually that catches up to you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

My question is,

whose taxes would be lower under the fair tax, and thus,

whose would be higher?

And please don't tell us everyone's taxes would be lower.

We're not all idiots.

No answer? All you fair tax experts/advocates can't tell us who would pay less tax and who would pay more?

Kind of takes away the biggest reason why anyone would support or oppose it, doesn't it? I mean, not even knowing how it would affect you?

 

[editec]

All tax systems -- no matter how they are structured -- are going to victimize one group or the other more than others.

The right wingers like to remind liberals, when the liberals are complaining about some policy that isn't fair, that the world is not fair.

Well then neither can our system of taxation be fair.

The ONLY way one could design a system of taxation that is truly fair is to start our with a society that was ALSO truly fair.

I'd be 100% for a FLAT TAX if we also had FLAT INCOMES.

But since we know that's never gonna happen, then obviously a flat tax is going to burden those with NO DISPOSABLE INCOME more than those with enormous amounts of disposable income.

And a consumption tax, while also having merit, ALSO falls most heavily on those who incomes are meager.

AND FYI those who incomes are meager (below say $50,000) includes about 75% of all Americans.

 

[NYcarbineer]

My question is,

whose taxes would be lower under the fair tax, and thus,

whose would be higher?

And please don't tell us everyone's taxes would be lower.

We're not all idiots.

No answer? All you fair tax experts/advocates can't tell us who would pay less tax and who would pay more?

Kind of takes away the biggest reason why anyone would support or oppose it, doesn't it? I mean, not even knowing how it would affect you?

Well, since the fair tax fans here apparently either have no clue how the fair tax would actually affect taxpayers, or,

they'd rather not say, let's make some guesses:

Here's one guess. It would lower taxes on the wealthiest Americans. Good guess? Okay, so,

if you lower taxes on the wealthiest Americans in the amount of what we'll call X, then you lose X in revenue from that source, so now, you have to make it up somewhere else. I'm guessing that wouldn't be the very poor, or probably not even the sort of poor.

I'm guessing middle class to upper middle class get their taxes raised in this scheme.

Any disagreement?

 

[Bern80]

There isn't enough education about money in this country. Not enough people understand it and not enough of it is taught.

This is by design. We have a consumption economy which is being kept afloat not by solid jobs, but reckless credit and bubbles. If people were smarter about money, they would do what they are doing now: not buy things they cannot afford. The result would be a recession, followed by a massive economic contraction, and severe job loss. We are finally living in a post fake-credit world. The economy is finally shrinking to accommodate how little money the middle class actually has (and had). [This is the recession that Clinton should have had before he was saved by the tech bubble, and Bush should have had before he was saved by the housing bubble ] We are finally paying the price for 30 years of easy money policies.

If you taught people about money, they'd realize that the American economy can no longer support middle class consumption (because the solid jobs are gone, i.e., the war on labor, the final frontier of profit, has been won). If you told the truth, people would have to face the deep structural flaws of the American economy, and this would lead to even less confidence, less investment, and more thrift (paradox of).

America has been supporting the largest consumption economy on earth not with solid fundamentals (jobs and good investments), but easy credit and bogus-speculative investments.

People don't get it. When too much money gets trapped on top, and too little money is circulating through the real economy (because the middle class has lost their solid jobs), you have a double whammy, the perfect storm:

1) Wall Street has to invent speculative garbage to satisfy the excess hunger for higher returns that comes with excess capital.

2) The financial industry has to invent ever more complex debt instruments to give consumers enough money to support the real economy.

That is, you need more and more fake stimuli to make up for the structural distribution failure -- so you lower rates to criminal levels, and you lend money into the economy on the backs of morons, illegal aliens, and corpses. You even hawk your homes, turning them into ATMs. Anything to make up for the fact that, contra-Reagan, the money never trickled down into the middle class, i.e., they don't have the solid jobs necessary to support consumption.

Again:

The wealthy are given a Wall Street casino (i.e., too much money chasing too few investments leads to the creation of speculative garbage), and the poor are given credit cards and ALT-A's (because their once solid wages and benefits have been transferred upward as profits... leaving them with insufficient money to drive consumption. And no president wants to face the political consequences of a failed economy, so they resort to easy money tricks).

The postwar economy, designed around underwriting middle class demand through tax-&-labor policy and a wealth of government programs, worked. Reaganomics failed to understand what would happen once you got rid of the entitlement-fed middle class. You would need more and more credit/bubbles to stimulate demand. Eventually that catches up to you.

In your whole woe is the middle class spiel I think you picked out the wrong point. You might want to look at the one that has to do with holding yourself accountable. There is no conspiracy afoot that is keeping your from educating yourself.

 

[Bern80]

My question is,

whose taxes would be lower under the fair tax, and thus,

whose would be higher?

And please don't tell us everyone's taxes would be lower.

We're not all idiots.

No answer? All you fair tax experts/advocates can't tell us who would pay less tax and who would pay more?

Kind of takes away the biggest reason why anyone would support or oppose it, doesn't it? I mean, not even knowing how it would affect you?

The reason you're not getting an answer is because in the case of the the fair tax such a concept of who's taxes would be lower is kind of a nonsensical question. What do you mean who's taxes would be lower? Lower comparing one class to another? Lower than they were under an income tax system?

I know exactly how it would effect me. How much I pay in tax would be dependent on how much I spend on consumables. The more you purchase and the more expensive those things are the more you will pay in taxes. To me that is far more fair than government thinking it is somehow entitled to part of what I earn our of my paycheck.

 

[Bern80]

My question is,

whose taxes would be lower under the fair tax, and thus,

whose would be higher?

And please don't tell us everyone's taxes would be lower.

We're not all idiots.

No answer? All you fair tax experts/advocates can't tell us who would pay less tax and who would pay more?

Kind of takes away the biggest reason why anyone would support or oppose it, doesn't it? I mean, not even knowing how it would affect you?

Well, since the fair tax fans here apparently either have no clue how the fair tax would actually affect taxpayers, or,

they'd rather not say, let's make some guesses:

Here's one guess. It would lower taxes on the wealthiest Americans. Good guess? Okay, so,

if you lower taxes on the wealthiest Americans in the amount of what we'll call X, then you lose X in revenue from that source, so now, you have to make it up somewhere else. I'm guessing that wouldn't be the very poor, or probably not even the sort of poor.

I'm guessing middle class to upper middle class get their taxes raised in this scheme.

Any disagreement?

And there is where you miss the big picture. Why do you just automatically assume government NEEDS all that money? Government spends money inefficiently. The way it is constructed it simply doesn't have a choice but to spend money inefficiently. It's people like you that mind boggle the rest of us. Why on earth would someone continue to argue giving more of their money to such an ineffectual body is quite beyond most people.