For all you Wrongpublicans supporting the 'Fair Tax'

[LiberalMedia]

The only fair tax is a flat tax: whatever percent applied to gross, no deductions for anything.

So then you'll love it when you get a federal income tax levied at a flat rate of 100%, with no deductions, no credits, and no money in your pay checks, right?

That's actually not too far off from something I was thinking of. Great mynds think alike, fellow lybyryl.

Sure thing. I'd stop working, of course, as would every other rational person. We're getting ther with current tax rates, so why not embrace the inevitable in the People's Republic of America.

That's the spirit, fellow lybyryl! Just sit back and trust in President Obama to provide for all our needs and wants.

Together, we can let the government build us a brighter future.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

The only fair tax is a flat tax: whatever percent applied to gross, no deductions for anything.

I also support a flat federal tax on all purchases that are made .... let's start with say ... 15% without exception to income level. Now for those in opposition, when you look at a flat 15% tax on a Toyota tundra vs. the purchase of a $2 million dollar yacht, who do you think will end up paying more to the Federal Government? Oh, you want to increase the flat tax rate? Well, lets make that require a 2/3 vote in favor of no more than 2% increase per 4 years, with no written allowance to seek a change towards a nuclear option or simple majority.

 

[bripat9643]

You do, of course, realize that the Fair Tax Act repeals all federal income taxes, self-employment taxes, payroll taxes, estate taxes, gift taxes, alcohol taxes, and tobacco taxes, right? And that passage of the Fair Tax Act, while not removing the ability of Congress to re-institute all of those things, does in fact put the federal sales tax in place of them?

That goes to both bripat and ThoughtCrimes, by the way.

I wouldn't endorse the FAIR tax unless the 16th Amendment was repealed first.

Why not? Don't trust your duly-elected corporate shills to do the right thing?

Definitely not.

 

[bripat9643]

So long as the 16th is repealed, where's the "insanity?" It's much smarter to tax consumption that to tax earning. It's also far simpler. The FAIR tax would make all the special exemptions we have in the current code a lot more difficult.

It would also make living a lot more difficult. The richest Americans got that way by moving enormous piles of money around via capital-intensive investments; as their piles of money accumulate more millions and billions, their consumption as a percentage of their income drops drastically. Do you truly believe it is fair to only tax based on consumption, and not ability to pay? Is such a massive spike in the cost of food, gasoline, and healthcare really the best option for funding the government?

The "equity quotient" is the issue with a consumption tax, you are correct. It would fall the heaviest on those who could least afford it. That is why it would likely be among the worst options; on par with the enumeration tax of old.

Actually no it doesn't. The effect of the prebate is to exempt all those below the poverty level from paying any tax whatsoever. Above the poverty level it behaves like a flat tax. If your whine is that it's not progressive, all I have to say is "go **** yourself." Progressive taxation is an offence against civilization.

 

[bripat9643]

Thanks for the clarification. I've read the current bill, and it is a freakin' mess, repealing the 1986 tax code, and putting in place a consumption tax. Insanity! The 16th would still be there for some future cabal to reinstitute with a new tax code.

So long as the 16th is repealed, where's the "insanity?" It's much smarter to tax consumption that to tax earning. It's also far simpler. The FAIR tax would make all the special exemptions we have in the current code a lot more difficult.

I don't think you fully understood what I wrote. I'll restate it:
If Amendment XVI is repealed and replaced in one stroke with proper legislation that could not be messed with to favor political cronies and produce the required Federal revenue, fine. Doing it piecemeal would require trust of those legislating, but who in their right mind has that much trust in either of the two corrupt major factions?

These are the same imbeciles and criminals you trust now to implement the income tax.

 

[bripat9643]

The only fair tax is a flat tax: whatever percent applied to gross, no deductions for anything.

I also support a flat federal tax on all purchases that are made .... let's start with say ... 15% without exception to income level. Now for those in opposition, when you look at a flat 15% tax on a Toyota tundra vs. the purchase of a $2 million dollar yacht, who do you think will end up paying more to the Federal Government? Oh, you want to increase the flat tax rate? Well, lets make that require a 2/3 vote in favor of no more than 2% increase per 4 years, with no written allowance to seek a change towards a nuclear option or simple majority.

If you don't abolish the income tax, then you haven't solved the problem. You haven't gotten rid of the corrupt and biased IRS and you haven't eliminated the millions of rules that businesses have to use to calculate what they owe.

 

[The Rabbi]

Im not a fan of the fair tax, which will substitute one bureucracy and set of rules for another. I prefer the flat tax, which simply involves a modification of what we have. First 30k is exempt, after that it's 12% on every dollar earned, no matter the source. No deductions. Just like in 1913 you could put your return on a post card and send it in. I'd also support ending payroll withholding for income taxes. April 15th everyone writes a check. That would induce some fiscal discipline as people would understand politicians are spending their money, not giving them something.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

"hurr let's abolish taxes"

"durr repeal da sixteenf amendment"

"y my money gotta go 2 soshul securidy"

"we shud just hav a fair tax, thatll solve muh prollems"

Will it, conservatard? When conservatards and libertardians hear the phrase "fair tax," they naturally rally around whoever's speaking. But is this the smart thing to do? Let's investigate what exactly is meant when we hear a politician calling for a "fair tax".

Only 'fair tax' is a flat tax. If the tax rate varies because of income it's no longer fair.

 

[Youch]

My first post here. Seems this place is far less moderated than other similar forums. Might be fun....

It was difficult wading through all the venom and intolerance of the first couple of pages of this thread. It reminded me of the few times I listened to the failed adventure that was liberal talk radio....

Do you truly believe it is fair to only tax based on consumption, and not ability to pay? Is such a massive spike in the cost of food, gasoline, and healthcare really the best option for funding the government?

Ah yes, the failed doctrine of from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

Socialism works great until you run out of other people's money.

That's the spirit, fellow lybyryl! Just sit back and trust in President Obama to provide for all our needs and wants.

Together, we can let the government build us a brighter future.

Government isn't the solution. It is the problem. And you advocate more of it. Migrants all over the world seek freedom, not increasing degrees of government.

I'll let you do all the name calling. But I'll add that a flat tax, or even some version of a "fair tax," is politically DOA, as it would force the people at the lower end of the economic scale to actually pay a tax.....and peeps prefer freebies.

 

[zeke]

23% is the tax exclusive rate, numskull, so all your claims based on that are pure horseshit. I'd like to know where you come up with this 30% rate, because no one ever proposed that.

READ. THE. BILL.

Bill Text - 113th Congress (2013-2014) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

CTRL+F "exclusive": Zero results.

CTRL+F "inclusive": Multiple results. They even define what "tax inclusive fair market value" is, since they refer to the concept so much in the text of the bill.

Yes, they define the "tax inclusive fair market value." However, nowhere does the bill say the 23% rate will be defined this way. The only line where the 23% rate is mentioned says this:

"(1) FOR 2015- In the calendar year 2015, the rate of tax is 23 percent of the gross payments for the taxable property or service."

That would be EXCLUSIVE, not inclusive, moron.

This thread illustrates the painfully large gap in intelligence and intellectual honesty between enlightened lybyryls like mysylf and backwards, uncivilized conservatards. Whereas I speak from a position of authority, given my research into the subject and use of primary source materials (which include things like the actual bill and don't include things like Sean Hannity psychobabble), conservatards can only foam at the mouth and parrot the same talking points their corporatist overlords taught them on the mind-rotting television they worship as their god--in between bouts of proclaiming "America's Christian heritage" and "In God We Trust".

True enough, it does illustrate the painfully large gap in intelligence and intellectual honesty between you and normal people. You have lied about what the bill says, plus you're too stupid to know it.

BTW. I'm an atheist, not a Christian, so your rant about Christians is a complete non sequitur. OH, and note how I used quotes from the actual bill that refer to the parts being discussed. You, on the other hand, quoted stuff that was irrelevant.

**** this and **** that. Nah dude, you are a ******* asshole. Plain and simple. No doubt about it. ******* punk assed little ***** is what you are and you can shove your ******* fair tax idea up your ass.

 

[zeke]

My first post here. Seems this place is far less moderated than other similar forums. Might be fun....

It was difficult wading through all the venom and intolerance of the first couple of pages of this thread. It reminded me of the few times I listened to the failed adventure that was liberal talk radio....

Do you truly believe it is fair to only tax based on consumption, and not ability to pay? Is such a massive spike in the cost of food, gasoline, and healthcare really the best option for funding the government?

Ah yes, the failed doctrine of from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

Socialism works great until you run out of other people's money.

That's the spirit, fellow lybyryl! Just sit back and trust in President Obama to provide for all our needs and wants.

Together, we can let the government build us a brighter future.

Government isn't the solution. It is the problem. And you advocate more of it. Migrants all over the world seek freedom, not increasing degrees of government.

I'll let you do all the name calling. But I'll add that a flat tax, or even some version of a "fair tax," is politically DOA, as it would force the people at the lower end of the economic scale to actually pay a tax.....and peeps prefer freebies.

Hey I can see that you are new to posting on this site. But I also noticed you've been drinking the Repub cool aid for some time now.

Hey was it the poor people that wrote the tax code so they qualify for the Earned Income Tax credit? Who wrote that law and why did they do it?

 

[bripat9643]

READ. THE. BILL.

Bill Text - 113th Congress (2013-2014) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

CTRL+F "exclusive": Zero results.

CTRL+F "inclusive": Multiple results. They even define what "tax inclusive fair market value" is, since they refer to the concept so much in the text of the bill.

Yes, they define the "tax inclusive fair market value." However, nowhere does the bill say the 23% rate will be defined this way. The only line where the 23% rate is mentioned says this:

"(1) FOR 2015- In the calendar year 2015, the rate of tax is 23 percent of the gross payments for the taxable property or service."

That would be EXCLUSIVE, not inclusive, moron.

This thread illustrates the painfully large gap in intelligence and intellectual honesty between enlightened lybyryls like mysylf and backwards, uncivilized conservatards. Whereas I speak from a position of authority, given my research into the subject and use of primary source materials (which include things like the actual bill and don't include things like Sean Hannity psychobabble), conservatards can only foam at the mouth and parrot the same talking points their corporatist overlords taught them on the mind-rotting television they worship as their god--in between bouts of proclaiming "America's Christian heritage" and "In God We Trust".

True enough, it does illustrate the painfully large gap in intelligence and intellectual honesty between you and normal people. You have lied about what the bill says, plus you're too stupid to know it.

BTW. I'm an atheist, not a Christian, so your rant about Christians is a complete non sequitur. OH, and note how I used quotes from the actual bill that refer to the parts being discussed. You, on the other hand, quoted stuff that was irrelevant.

**** this and **** that. Nah dude, you are a ******* asshole. Plain and simple. No doubt about it. ******* punk assed little ***** is what you are and you can shove your ******* fair tax idea up your ass.

The **** I was replaying to is not a stranger to personal attacks. You obviously don't have a problem with that. If people are going to make personal attacks, then I give a good dose of their own medicine, that includes you, moron.

I never expected a tick on the ass of society to support the FAIR tax. They shrink away from it like a Vampire avoids sunlight.

 

[bripat9643]

Im not a fan of the fair tax, which will substitute one bureucracy and set of rules for another. I prefer the flat tax, which simply involves a modification of what we have. First 30k is exempt, after that it's 12% on every dollar earned, no matter the source. No deductions. Just like in 1913 you could put your return on a post card and send it in. I'd also support ending payroll withholding for income taxes. April 15th everyone writes a check. That would induce some fiscal discipline as people would understand politicians are spending their money, not giving them something.

The FAIR tax does get rid of the 80,000 pages of the IRS code. Your so-called "flat tax" leaves 99% of it in place. It also leaves the IRS in place. Furthermore, as we have already seen, Congress can easily restore all the brackets that were eliminated. It can't do that with the FAIR tax.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

They're called African-Americans, bigot.

And of course I know what that term means. It's a racist euphemism used to refer to a place where stolen or illegal goods are sold, so named because African-Americans were alleged to be the sellers and main buyers at such places.

And you conservatards thought my degree in African-American History was useless. No, bigots, I'm wise to your discriminatory ways. I don't let even the most subtle racism slide.

There isn't the slightest thing racist about it, you witless ****. It's called "black" because it's hidden. It's in the dark. Economists have been using the term for centuries, and the still use it full view of hundreds of students in universities all over the country.

Economics is racist.



Extremely. African-American Friday is another part of racist lore, and refers to the day when prices are lowered so African-Americans, being poor, can afford to actually buy something rather than stealing it.



A plain English translation: "Making money off of African-American slave labor, what a great thing!"



Why does the mark have to be African-American?



This refers to more racist folklore which held that, in the early days of electricity, African-Americans would attempt to break into any houses with electric lights, given that to afford such expensive new technology the (white) family inside must be rich. The full phrase was originally, "Shut the lights off, there's an African-American out on the loose!" This has, in present times, been shortened to the quick warning given from one racist to another, "African-American out!"



The term "African-American sheep" refers to someone strange and different. It is racist to its very core, as it implies that there is something inherently wrong with being African-American.



Another inherently racist term, as it implies that an "African-American day" is a bad or saddening one.

"The pot calling the kettle black?"

Again, this implies that African-American is a negative term. "The pot calling the kettle African-American" originated from a fairy tale created by racist whites, proud of their porcelain skin. In the story, a sentient porcelain pot calls a self-aware cast-iron kettle "African-American" as an insult, explaining that because it was a darker color than the pot, the kettle must do all of the work in boiling water for cooking.

It's hard to believe anyone could be as stupid as you.

Tragically, it's very easy to believe that there are, in fact, many people as racist as you are. Racists walk among us in our everyday lives, but I've become very adept at spotting and outing them. I'm a social justice warrior and I won't stop calling out bigots like you until the scourge of racism is finally eliminated in our society.

You have to admit, she's good and highly creative.. Long Lyvv Wymyn!!!

 

[Erand7899]

Thanks for the clarification. I've read the current bill, and it is a freakin' mess, repealing the 1986 tax code, and putting in place a consumption tax. Insanity! The 16th would still be there for some future cabal to reinstitute with a new tax code.

So long as the 16th is repealed, where's the "insanity?" It's much smarter to tax consumption that to tax earning. It's also far simpler. The FAIR tax would make all the special exemptions we have in the current code a lot more difficult.

It would also make living a lot more difficult. The richest Americans got that way by moving enormous piles of money around via capital-intensive investments; as their piles of money accumulate more millions and billions, their consumption as a percentage of their income drops drastically. Do you truly believe it is fair to only tax based on consumption, and not ability to pay? Is such a massive spike in the cost of food, gasoline, and healthcare really the best option for funding the government?

If you believe that the purpose of the income tax is to redistribute wealth and punish rich people, then your contention has merit. Otherwise, it is a means of funding the federal government.

Most working Americans pay 10% of their gross income in payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare. That means that the "FAIR tax" is an addition of 13% to them. Even less, when figuring in the poverty line rebate.

The "FAIR tax" also has a considerable price reduction element included, since no product price would include upstream federal taxes. This reduction in product cost would not only make things cheaper in our stores, but make them more competitive around the world. That means more jobs in America.

Everyone wins with the "FAIR tax".

 

[Pete7469]

Part I: The FairTax™

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax

The FairTax is a proposal to reform the federal tax code of the United States. It would replace all federal income taxes (including the alternative minimum tax, corporate income taxes, and capital gains taxes), payroll taxes (including Social Security and Medicare taxes), gift taxes, and estate taxes with a single broad national consumption tax on retail sales. The Fair Tax Act (H.R. 25/S. 122) would apply a tax, once, at the point of purchase on all new goods and services for personal consumption.

The proposal also calls for a monthly payment to all family households of lawful U.S. residents as an advance rebate, or "prebate", of tax on purchases up to the poverty level.

As defined in the proposed legislation, the tax rate is 23% for the first year. This percentage is based on the total amount paid including the tax ($23 out of every $100 spent in total). This would be equivalent to a 30% traditional U.S. sales tax ($23 on top of every $77 spent—$100 total).[4] The rate would then be automatically adjusted annually based on federal receipts in the previous fiscal year.[5] With the rebate taken into consideration, the FairTax would be progressive on consumption,[2] but would also be regressive on income at higher income levels (as consumption falls as a percentage of income).[6][7] Opponents argue this would accordingly decrease the tax burden on high-income earners and increase it on the middle class.[4][8]

Well would you look at that--it's not a "fair tax" at all, but rather the FairTax™, which would crush the middle class and absolutely slaughter the lower class by introducing a nearly 30% federal sales tax, on top of whatever your state and local sales taxes are.

Keep in mind, Wrongpublicans, that the FairTax™ does not abolish state income taxes, nor does it touch local property taxes. A typical North Carolina resident, for example will be paying an 8% state income tax, a sales tax of 7-8% in most places (this depends upon exactly where you live), and a 30% federal sales tax. If you happen to buy something that's a bit too nice for your plebeian hands to touch, your local government will levy a property tax on that, too--meaning that the car you just paid 30% extra for will still be subject to addition taxation.

I have to laugh every time I see you lampoon mindless bed wetter "arguments".

Thanks for bringing this up. The answers are too easy here. There are so many taxes on our economy that the public and consumers don't even know they pay. Even in their phone bills there are a plethora of taxes, though so low they don't seem to bother people. When someone capable of rational thinking, and libtards clearly are not, takes an objective look at the fact that the US Gov't alone steals %26 of the nation's GDP per year (and still spends more than that) eliminating all other federal taxes and instead making a %23 tax across the board for the very end of the productive process (that is the end sale) you not only eliminate %3 of the theft, but you significantly reduce the burden of companies to ensure they're in compliance with all of these taxes.

Couple that with a balanced budget amendment, and the democrook party would be abolished as well.

That's what they're terrified of. Of course you have to somehow educate the low information voter, and doing so while MSLSD is warping people's minds will be quite a task.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

My first post here. Seems this place is far less moderated than other similar forums. Might be fun....

It was difficult wading through all the venom and intolerance of the first couple of pages of this thread. It reminded me of the few times I listened to the failed adventure that was liberal talk radio....

Do you truly believe it is fair to only tax based on consumption, and not ability to pay? Is such a massive spike in the cost of food, gasoline, and healthcare really the best option for funding the government?

Ah yes, the failed doctrine of from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

Socialism works great until you run out of other people's money.

That's the spirit, fellow lybyryl! Just sit back and trust in President Obama to provide for all our needs and wants.

Together, we can let the government build us a brighter future.

Government isn't the solution. It is the problem. And you advocate more of it. Migrants all over the world seek freedom, not increasing degrees of government.

I'll let you do all the name calling. But I'll add that a flat tax, or even some version of a "fair tax," is politically DOA, as it would force the people at the lower end of the economic scale to actually pay a tax.....and peeps prefer freebies.

Welcome to the best forum on the interwebz..

 

[Pete7469]

My first post here. Seems this place is far less moderated than other similar forums. Might be fun....

It was difficult wading through all the venom and intolerance of the first couple of pages of this thread. It reminded me of the few times I listened to the failed adventure that was liberal talk radio....

Do you truly believe it is fair to only tax based on consumption, and not ability to pay? Is such a massive spike in the cost of food, gasoline, and healthcare really the best option for funding the government?

Ah yes, the failed doctrine of from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

Socialism works great until you run out of other people's money.

That's the spirit, fellow lybyryl! Just sit back and trust in President Obama to provide for all our needs and wants.

Together, we can let the government build us a brighter future.

Government isn't the solution. It is the problem. And you advocate more of it. Migrants all over the world seek freedom, not increasing degrees of government.

I'll let you do all the name calling. But I'll add that a flat tax, or even some version of a "fair tax," is politically DOA, as it would force the people at the lower end of the economic scale to actually pay a tax.....and peeps prefer freebies.

Excellent first post. Welcome to the forum.

The only obstacle is showing the dependency class that they actually pay a shit ton of taxes in the end product of what they're buying even if it's with someone else's money. There are so many taxes unseen that take place before a commodity even hits the shelves that increase the price of that product. Wipe those out and the price of the product is reduced.

 

[The Rabbi]

Im not a fan of the fair tax, which will substitute one bureucracy and set of rules for another. I prefer the flat tax, which simply involves a modification of what we have. First 30k is exempt, after that it's 12% on every dollar earned, no matter the source. No deductions. Just like in 1913 you could put your return on a post card and send it in. I'd also support ending payroll withholding for income taxes. April 15th everyone writes a check. That would induce some fiscal discipline as people would understand politicians are spending their money, not giving them something.

The FAIR tax does get rid of the 80,000 pages of the IRS code. Your so-called "flat tax" leaves 99% of it in place. It also leaves the IRS in place. Furthermore, as we have already seen, Congress can easily restore all the brackets that were eliminated. It can't do that with the FAIR tax.

FAIR tax will create as many pages of rules eventually. Look at Europe and their VAT, which is essentially a fair tax on some scale. Some sales are tax exempt, like B2B, others arent. Companies spend huge amounts of time and money trying to figure out how to game the system rather than make better products. Also as long as the Constitution is not amended Congress could reinstitute an income tax any time.
Flat tax will eliminate many of the rules because s many of them deal with what is a taxable event.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

So long as the 16th is repealed, where's the "insanity?" It's much smarter to tax consumption that to tax earning. It's also far simpler. The FAIR tax would make all the special exemptions we have in the current code a lot more difficult.

I don't think you fully understood what I wrote. I'll restate it:
If Amendment XVI is repealed and replaced in one stroke with proper legislation that could not be messed with to favor political cronies and produce the required Federal revenue, fine. Doing it piecemeal would require trust of those legislating, but who in their right mind has that much trust in either of the two corrupt major factions?

These are the same imbeciles and criminals you trust now to implement the income tax.

You obviously enjoy ranting without thinking or paying any attention to another's thoughts written out before you. So I'll parse it for you in small bites to help your understanding. But something tells me you'll still react like the small child in your avatar.

PAY ATTENTION NOW:

So long as the 16th is repealed, where's the "insanity?" It's much smarter to tax consumption that to tax earning. It's also far simpler. The FAIR tax would make all the special exemptions we have in the current code a lot more difficult.

A Fair tax isn't fair at all. The Fair tax bills proposed by the 113th Congress DO NOT PROVIDE FOR THE REPEAL OF AMENDMENT XVI, only the 1986 tax code, WHICH WAS AN AMENDMENT TO THE 1954 TAX CODE IN TITLE 26 OF THE US CODE. That is the insanity that you fail to recognize! Repeal of Amendment XVI would be required, which would nullify Title 26. HOWEVER, the action of repeal of Amendment XVI would reinstate the original enumeration tax and the bar to other taxes per Article I Sec. 9. A whole new can of worms, eh?

I have to laugh at your assertion that the Fair tax would make special exemptions "more difficult". Are you so naïve as to believe those devious bastards in Congress couldn't easily find a workaround for their corporate cronies? Laughable!

AGAIN, PAY ATTENTION:

These are the same imbeciles and criminals you trust now to implement the income tax.

That is either a figment of your imagination, a demented projection of your own state or some other runaway fantasy of yours. I trust those bastards like I would trust the fabled coyote.