I now support a consumption tax over a flat tax......

[asaratis]

Where is the line that separates "the fucking rich" from the poor tax payers?

$400,000.

Who Pays Taxes in America CTJReports

 

[EverCurious]

A consumption tax would mean people would be less likely to buy things which means less jobs for people making and selling things, which in turn will increase expenses when they all go on welfare.

Here's a concept- MAKE THE FUCKING RICH PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE. Reinvest that money that will be wasted on bullshit like Dressage horsies and mansions into schools and infrastructure that will make us more competitive.

All a consumption tax does is shift the tax burden from the wealthiest to those with much less...

When is enough, enough....with this kind of shift of the tax burden on to the middle class and away from the very elite?

When?

When?

STOP ALREADY, you silly, stupefied PAWNS...use your God given brain....

The wealthy are not going to stop buying things because there's a tax on it, that idea is just silly. If I want shit, I'm gonna buy shit, if it costs a bit more cause of the tax, then oh well. The city I live in has no sales tax, but the city my cabin is in does have a sales tax - when I want something I go to the store and buy it regardless of if it has a sales tax on it or not...

No offense intended here, but you are thinking the way paycheck-to-paycheck people do about "price," - a good deal, if not most, of us wealthy and upper class don't even look at price tags until you get into the cost of like cars and houses. And frankly, seeing a 30% tax on the vehicle we want isn't going to make us /not/ buy said car anyway. If we want that car, we're going to buy it, the most you could even realistically argue it would do is cause us to buy a less equipped car, which has almost no effect on anything except the car maker's bottom line that would effect workers (aka options are sheer profit for car makers.) Either way though, for the most part we're talking about stuff like, instead of a $200 pair of pants, it's $230 with the tax - and that is very much not likely to deter our spending habits one bit. In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the wealthy ended up paying /more/ in a consumption tax than we do for income tax; and we wouldn't really give too much of a crap, because instead of getting a huge bill every April going to the government to waste, we'd not be paying as much attention to how much we paid into taxes, plus it'd be a lot more fair if /everyone/ was paying at least something in, instead of /just/ us... And as was mentioned, it would close those legal things you whiners call "loopholes" that our handy dandy accountants find so they can say they are "better" than the other accountants out there.

 

[warf]

The operation of government requires a certain amount of money.

If a consumption tax doesn't provide enough from where will the rest of the money come?

People will adjust to a consumption tax by deferring purchases, bad for the economy, and creating an underground black market. The barter system will re-emerge and things will be repaired instead of being replaced.

The wealthy may buy more than the poor. But not that much compared to the income difference. It makes more sense to tax differing incomes on the earners' ability to pay.

 

[asaratis]

The operation of government requires a certain amount of money.

If a consumption tax doesn't provide enough from where will the rest of the money come?

People will adjust to a consumption tax by deferring purchases, bad for the economy, and creating an underground black market. The barter system will re-emerge and things will be repaired instead of being replaced.

The wealthy may buy more than the poor. But not that much compared to the income difference. It makes more sense to tax differing incomes on the earners' ability to pay.

No it doesn't. Taxing income stifles investment in businesses that provide jobs so others can earn income.

Taxing consumption merely redefines the pricing methods for goods and services. The market will determine total costs and said total costs will eventually recede to current . Part of the market drive to lower the prices will be in the seller's realization that he does not have to pay income taxes on the revenue.

Substantial tax revenues will be generated by making the pimps, drug dealers, mobsters...everybody...pay the tax...at point of sale....in cash (so to speak).

I watched a man on TV the other day spend $25,000,000.00 for one sports car. He likely would not have cared that 23% of it ($5,750,000.00) went to the federal government.

 

[JoeB131]

No it doesn't. Taxing income stifles investment in businesses that provide jobs so others can earn income.

Taxing consumption merely redefines the pricing methods for goods and services. The market will determine total costs and said total costs will eventually recede to current . Part of the market drive to lower the prices will be in the seller's realization that he does not have to pay income taxes on the revenue.

I love Supply Siders. No matter how many times their bullshit has been debunked, they keep spewing it.

Point is, you add cost to a product not related to it's value, you discourage its consumption. For instance, if you add 20% cost to a car, people will simply get four or five more years out of the car they got.

No, what we should do is tax income, and make the rich pay their fair share. Period.

 

[Care4all]

The operation of government requires a certain amount of money.

If a consumption tax doesn't provide enough from where will the rest of the money come?

People will adjust to a consumption tax by deferring purchases, bad for the economy, and creating an underground black market. The barter system will re-emerge and things will be repaired instead of being replaced.

The wealthy may buy more than the poor. But not that much compared to the income difference. It makes more sense to tax differing incomes on the earners' ability to pay.

No it doesn't. Taxing income stifles investment in businesses that provide jobs so others can earn income.

Taxing consumption merely redefines the pricing methods for goods and services. The market will determine total costs and said total costs will eventually recede to current . Part of the market drive to lower the prices will be in the seller's realization that he does not have to pay income taxes on the revenue.

Substantial tax revenues will be generated by making the pimps, drug dealers, mobsters...everybody...pay the tax...at point of sale....in cash (so to speak).

I watched a man on TV the other day spend $25,000,000.00 for one sports car. He likely would not have cared that 23% of it ($5,750,000.00) went to the federal government.

If the buyer never owed any income tax on his earnings because it was lower than the beginning tax thresh hold, then you ARE RAISING TAXES on him and his family with a consumption tax.

Is that what you and others supporting a consumption tax truly and really want? Do you really want to lower the taxes... even more so than we have time and time and time and time AGAIN, on the wealthiest people in the entire Nation if not the World, and raise the tax burden on the poorest in the nation, and increase the gap between the wealthiest and the poorest more than it is already?

That is simply unethical and immoral, don't cha think?

How can anyone argue that it is not?

 

[asaratis]

No it doesn't. Taxing income stifles investment in businesses that provide jobs so others can earn income.

Taxing consumption merely redefines the pricing methods for goods and services. The market will determine total costs and said total costs will eventually recede to current . Part of the market drive to lower the prices will be in the seller's realization that he does not have to pay income taxes on the revenue.

I love Supply Siders. No matter how many times their bullshit has been debunked, they keep spewing it.

Point is, you add cost to a product not related to it's value, you discourage its consumption. For instance, if you add 20% cost to a car, people will simply get four or five more years out of the car they got.

No, what we should do is tax income, and make the rich pay their fair share. Period.

The rich already pay their fair share.

The trouble with the liberal leeches is they expect everything to be totally free.

 

[asaratis]

The operation of government requires a certain amount of money.

If a consumption tax doesn't provide enough from where will the rest of the money come?

People will adjust to a consumption tax by deferring purchases, bad for the economy, and creating an underground black market. The barter system will re-emerge and things will be repaired instead of being replaced.

The wealthy may buy more than the poor. But not that much compared to the income difference. It makes more sense to tax differing incomes on the earners' ability to pay.

No it doesn't. Taxing income stifles investment in businesses that provide jobs so others can earn income.

Taxing consumption merely redefines the pricing methods for goods and services. The market will determine total costs and said total costs will eventually recede to current . Part of the market drive to lower the prices will be in the seller's realization that he does not have to pay income taxes on the revenue.

Substantial tax revenues will be generated by making the pimps, drug dealers, mobsters...everybody...pay the tax...at point of sale....in cash (so to speak).

I watched a man on TV the other day spend $25,000,000.00 for one sports car. He likely would not have cared that 23% of it ($5,750,000.00) went to the federal government.

If the buyer never owed any income tax on his earnings because it was lower than the beginning tax thresh hold, then you ARE RAISING TAXES on him and his family with a consumption tax.

Is that what you and others supporting a consumption tax truly and really want? Do you really want to lower the taxes... even more so than we have time and time and time and time AGAIN, on the wealthiest people in the entire Nation if not the World, and raise the tax burden on the poorest in the nation, and increase the gap between the wealthiest and the poorest more than it is already?

That is simply unethical and immoral, don't cha think?

How can anyone argue that it is not?

You need to read The Fair Tax to understand how it takes care of low income people. I can't explain it near as well. They get a check. They get paid.

People that understand what The Fair Tax does will tell you.....

We need the FairTax.

The FairTax brings trillions of dollars in offshore investment and manufacturing back to the United States - creating millions of good jobs for American workers.

The FairTax is the only plan that lowers everyone's tax rates, untaxes the poor, broadens the tax base, and helps protect Social Security and Medicare.

The FairTax is the only plan that guarantees criminals, illegal immigrants, and all who operate in the underground economy pay their fair share - not just hard working Americans who play by the rules.

The FairTax is the only plan that guarantees Washington bureaucrats don't have access to your personal financial information.

 

[BullKurtz]

The problem with a consumption tax is that poor people pay almost their entire income on consumption while the higher income classes pay a much smaller rate of their income on consumption. I believe abolishing the income tax altogether is the cure. Default on the national debt now....it's inevitable. We should go back to tolls and duties on imports to fund necessary government expenses (defense, food& drug inspection, infrastructure). Imagine the money that would get back into circulation without an income tax coupled with high enough duties on imports reopening our factories....millions of new jobs, billions in venture capital. And with so much less money going into politicians' hands, the crooks in DC would have to find gainful employment elsewhere.

 

[asaratis]

Frequently Asked Questions FAQs FAIRtax.org

This will answer a lot of questions that have been ignorantly discussed here already.

 

[warf]

Frequently Asked Questions FAQs FAIRtax.org

This will answer a lot of questions that have been ignorantly discussed here already.

I don't think much of your site. For one thing, no one knows how high the tax must be to keep revenue at a sustainable level.

You can't say it will be 30% because people will make adjustments and stop purchasing on the legitimate market.

And if it was 30%, that's a lot higher rate than nearly everyone is now paying with our present system. How is that going to help anyone but the rich?

 

[Care4all]

The operation of government requires a certain amount of money.

If a consumption tax doesn't provide enough from where will the rest of the money come?

People will adjust to a consumption tax by deferring purchases, bad for the economy, and creating an underground black market. The barter system will re-emerge and things will be repaired instead of being replaced.

The wealthy may buy more than the poor. But not that much compared to the income difference. It makes more sense to tax differing incomes on the earners' ability to pay.

No it doesn't. Taxing income stifles investment in businesses that provide jobs so others can earn income.

Taxing consumption merely redefines the pricing methods for goods and services. The market will determine total costs and said total costs will eventually recede to current . Part of the market drive to lower the prices will be in the seller's realization that he does not have to pay income taxes on the revenue.

Substantial tax revenues will be generated by making the pimps, drug dealers, mobsters...everybody...pay the tax...at point of sale....in cash (so to speak).

I watched a man on TV the other day spend $25,000,000.00 for one sports car. He likely would not have cared that 23% of it ($5,750,000.00) went to the federal government.

If the buyer never owed any income tax on his earnings because it was lower than the beginning tax thresh hold, then you ARE RAISING TAXES on him and his family with a consumption tax.

Is that what you and others supporting a consumption tax truly and really want? Do you really want to lower the taxes... even more so than we have time and time and time and time AGAIN, on the wealthiest people in the entire Nation if not the World, and raise the tax burden on the poorest in the nation, and increase the gap between the wealthiest and the poorest more than it is already?

That is simply unethical and immoral, don't cha think?

How can anyone argue that it is not?

You need to read The Fair Tax to understand how it takes care of low income people. I can't explain it near as well. They get a check. They get paid.

How can the poor get paid if no one knows their income, because income no longer needs to be reported?

I have a good friend who supports the Fair Tax and we probably spent a year discussing and arguing about it....in the end, he still supports it.... and has said the same as you on the poor being sent a check etc.... I guess I will have to read the darn book he recommended ages ago, to truly understand it....

People that understand what The Fair Tax does will tell you.....

We need the FairTax.

The FairTax brings trillions of dollars in offshore investment and manufacturing back to the United States - creating millions of good jobs for American workers.

How does the Fair tax do this?

The FairTax is the only plan that lowers everyone's tax rates, untaxes the poor, broadens the tax base, and helps protect Social Security and Medicare.

How does the Fair tax protect Social security and Medicare?

The FairTax is the only plan that guarantees criminals, illegal immigrants, and all who operate in the underground economy pay their fair share - not just hard working Americans who play by the rules.

Again, won't this kill sales growth and hurt the taxes that ARE very IMPORTANT for the States to collect, their sales taxes and limit the States in their ability to raise the sales tax slightly for things they need funding for...?

(It's my understanding that Illegals can not qualify for the federal gvt's welfare programs, but the States can fund them through their State welfare programs...without using federal money...)

The State sales taxes are paid by the illegals and those dealing illegally, along with federal and state gas taxes, federal and state liquor taxes, state and federal cigarette taxes....

WILL THESE Federal taxes be eliminated and just meld in to the the Fair tax?

The FairTax is the only plan that guarantees Washington bureaucrats don't have access to your personal financial information.

LOOK IN YOUR POST FOR MY ANSWERS IN BLUE

I wouldn't count on that....any employer can get your credit rating and financial information on you....let alone banks etc...the gvt too, the government will still get a way to have all that info on us....there are so many laws that allow them to....Like you can't make a cash deposit over $10k without the Feds being notified, you can't qualify for food stamps or TANF, or housing or any of those kind of things without reporting of income, you can't put more than X% of your income in to 401k's, you can't put more than x amount tax free in to IRA's and a thousand and one things like this that require the gvt to know your finances....

and in addition there is nothing stopping congress from just raising the consumption tax whenever they want..., and nothing stopping congress from borrowing and spending, just like they have since Reagan.