[POLL] - Liberals, how much is a "fair share?" - Taxes

[Uncensored2008]

Okay so we go with a sales tax. What is it applied to? On the seed that is sold to the farmer to grow wheat? On the wheat that is sold to General Mills to be ground into flour? On the flour that is sold to the baker? On the cake the baker sells to the grocery store? And again on the cake the grocery store sells to me? Or only the retail sales involved?

Sales taxes apply to retail sales. Most states have a sales tax - and the laws are consistent among the states. Sales taxes do not apply to wholesale. Essentially, if a product will be transformed into another product, it is not taxed. If a product is purchased to be resold without consumption, it is not taxed.

My view, consistent with those established by Ronald Reagan and still in place in California, is anything sold retail, except medicine and non-prepared food, is taxed. Reagan did away with all the exceptions and exemptions when he was Governor, and while it's too high, California has a fair and equitable sales tax system - virtually free of corruption.

 

[Foxfyre]

I didn't take it as "arguing," just responding to your points. I'm more "passionate' in my arguments then you, but in the end we both are focused on the points made, which is what i like about debating you. I find it sad but can't solve that most of the debates on this and every political site are mostly bickering with idiotic liberals making the same inane points when there are far more interesting issues to delve into.

As for your question, you have to go back to that you're paying it now anyway. There is no transition to be done. All the company's business taxes you bought from, the income tax for all their employees, employer and employee payroll taxes, unemployment taxes, capital gains taxes, taxes on debt payments and all the rest except for the death taxes are built into the price of what you are buying already just like the price of the steel and bricks they are made out of.

The price of products will not go up to be revenue neutral. And they will actually drop as all the tax inefficiencies are eliminated.

Now wait a minute. Currently the gross receipts tax on a loaf of bread in Albuquerque is 7%. The bread retails for about $1.25 plus tax or $1.34 at check out.

Now then, if all things remain the same, a flat tax would impose a 13% tax on that loaf of bread.

$1.25 plus 9 cents local gross receipts tax plus 17 cents fair tax = $1.51 for that same loaf of bread. You're telling me that the base cost of that loaf of bread will be reduced by at least 17 cents because of tax savings in the production, wholesale, and retail process?

Otherwise I will be taxed again on the money I use that was already taxed--quite heavily I might add--when I earned it.

Remember the fair tax replaces all other taxes, it's not added onto them. So, for the loaf of bread and your numbers:

$1.25 + 9 (local sales tax) + 17 (revenue neutral Fair Tax) - 17 (eliminated taxes that were included in the price) = $1.34.

Remember the business is no longer paying business tax, payroll taxes, unemployment tax, ...

Now here's the first kicker, think of all the money businesses spend on taxes that don't generate government revenue. Tax accountants, tax lawyers, time to fill in forms, tax disincentives to make economically decisions, ... Those costs go away too.

Now here's the second kicker, everyone who does cash work now and aren't paying taxes are going to be taxpayers because they pay tax when they buy things.

Now here's the third kicker, everyone selling goods in our economy (domestic and foreign companies) are paying the same taxes, which helps US firms compete.

And here's the biggest kicker of all, instead of driving out US companies, we're a tax haven and companies will actually come here.

The cost of the loaf of bread will quickly go down to less than $1.25. There is no transition to be made. On 12/31 we have our current crocked system, on 1/1 we go to the Fair Tax. Initially prices are stable, then they fall.

And you know what octopi those things are. Companies will get creative like they do now and find more advantages, only now they do it with a tax code that drives inefficiency and then they will do it with a market that drives efficiency.

And that doesn't even cover the liberty and privacy aspects of businesses and individuals reporting every piece of their financial data to government and politicians using the code to amass power.

But the business WILL be paying the fair tax on everything it buys, yes? And it won't be able to deduct that from its revenues as it can all the payroll and other taxes that he now pays before he pays that business tax on its actual profits. So there won't be as much of a wash there as you present here.

Until you can show me the impact of a fair tax on say a gallon of milk--does it factor into the cost of the cow? The feed and vet bills? The milking machine and sterlization equipment? Selling it to a processing company? Transportation to get it to a processing center? The carton? The wholesaler? And of course the retaler?

Again, I am not saying that I am opposed to the so-called "Fair Tax". But until these questions are answered to my satisfaction, I won't support one either. I no longer trust private, professional, or political promoters who give us all these glowing images and promises of how wonderful it will be. As Ross Perot often said: "The devil is in the details." It's time we take off all rose colored glasses and think through the ENTIRE process before foisting this stuff off on the American people.

 

[RKMBrown]

But until these questions are answered to my satisfaction, I won't support one either. ... It's time we take off all rose colored glasses and think through the ENTIRE process before foisting this stuff off on the American people.

Are you sure you want to take off your rose colored glasses? Can you?

Most folks view most issues from their own personal situation. For example, they decide which system will benefit themselves personally. For example, retired folks that have a large nest egg of post taxed money are going to naturally prefer a system that penalizes pre-tax based nest eggs, and vice versa.

What people rarely focus on is what system would result in a better future for America. It would seem it's all to easy to fall into a what's best for me and mine mentality.

 

[Foxfyre]

But until these questions are answered to my satisfaction, I won't support one either. ... It's time we take off all rose colored glasses and think through the ENTIRE process before foisting this stuff off on the American people.

Are you sure you want to take off your rose colored glasses? Can you?

Most folks view most issues from their own personal situation. For example, they decide which system will benefit themselves personally. For example, retired folks that have a large nest egg of post taxed money are going to naturally prefer a system that penalizes pre-tax based nest eggs, and vice versa.

What people rarely focus on is what system would result in a better future for America. It would seem it's all to easy to fall into a what's best for me and mine mentality.

While you may be right that most folks look at it from the perspective of how it will affect them personally, and maybe many if not most folks look at it from a what is best for me and mine point of view, I have to point out that the questions I raise are NOT looking at it through rose colored glasses. They are reasonable questions that ALL Americans who will be paying those taxes should ask and have answered before they sign onto a major revision of the tax policy.

The present system is pretty good for me and mine right now without going into a lot of boring detail, but I am one who has railed against it for most of my adult life and continue to do so for the benefit of my children, grand children, and the well being of the American people.

But it could be concluded that somebody who favored a Fair Tax system but refused to look at, consider, think about, and discuss the questions I posed IS somebody who is looking at it through rose colored glasses. Yes?

 

[Polk]

I didn't take it as "arguing," just responding to your points. I'm more "passionate' in my arguments then you, but in the end we both are focused on the points made, which is what i like about debating you. I find it sad but can't solve that most of the debates on this and every political site are mostly bickering with idiotic liberals making the same inane points when there are far more interesting issues to delve into.

As for your question, you have to go back to that you're paying it now anyway. There is no transition to be done. All the company's business taxes you bought from, the income tax for all their employees, employer and employee payroll taxes, unemployment taxes, capital gains taxes, taxes on debt payments and all the rest except for the death taxes are built into the price of what you are buying already just like the price of the steel and bricks they are made out of.

The price of products will not go up to be revenue neutral. And they will actually drop as all the tax inefficiencies are eliminated.

Now wait a minute. Currently the gross receipts tax on a loaf of bread in Albuquerque is 7%. The bread retails for about $1.25 plus tax or $1.34 at check out.

Now then, if all things remain the same, a flat tax would impose a 13% tax on that loaf of bread.

$1.25 plus 9 cents local gross receipts tax plus 17 cents fair tax = $1.51 for that same loaf of bread. You're telling me that the base cost of that loaf of bread will be reduced by at least 17 cents because of tax savings in the production, wholesale, and retail process?

Otherwise I will be taxed again on the money I use that was already taxed--quite heavily I might add--when I earned it.

Remember the fair tax replaces all other taxes, it's not added onto them. So, for the loaf of bread and your numbers:

$1.25 + 9 (local sales tax) + 17 (revenue neutral Fair Tax) - 17 (eliminated taxes that were included in the price) = $1.34.

Remember the business is no longer paying business tax, payroll taxes, unemployment tax, ...

Now here's the first kicker, think of all the money businesses spend on taxes that don't generate government revenue. Tax accountants, tax lawyers, time to fill in forms, tax disincentives to make economically decisions, ... Those costs go away too.

Now here's the second kicker, everyone who does cash work now and aren't paying taxes are going to be taxpayers because they pay tax when they buy things.

Now here's the third kicker, everyone selling goods in our economy (domestic and foreign companies) are paying the same taxes, which helps US firms compete.

And here's the biggest kicker of all, instead of driving out US companies, we're a tax haven and companies will actually come here.

The cost of the loaf of bread will quickly go down to less than $1.25. There is no transition to be made. On 12/31 we have our current crocked system, on 1/1 we go to the Fair Tax. Initially prices are stable, then they fall.

And you know what octopi those things are. Companies will get creative like they do now and find more advantages, only now they do it with a tax code that drives inefficiency and then they will do it with a market that drives efficiency.

And that doesn't even cover the liberty and privacy aspects of businesses and individuals reporting every piece of their financial data to government and politicians using the code to amass power.

The bolded portion literally claims he's thought of a tax system that can generate free money.

 

[Polk]

Now wait a minute. Currently the gross receipts tax on a loaf of bread in Albuquerque is 7%. The bread retails for about $1.25 plus tax or $1.34 at check out.

Now then, if all things remain the same, a flat tax would impose a 13% tax on that loaf of bread.

$1.25 plus 9 cents local gross receipts tax plus 17 cents fair tax = $1.51 for that same loaf of bread. You're telling me that the base cost of that loaf of bread will be reduced by at least 17 cents because of tax savings in the production, wholesale, and retail process?

Otherwise I will be taxed again on the money I use that was already taxed--quite heavily I might add--when I earned it.

Yes, that's exactly what he's telling you. And you're right to be skeptical, but it's complete rubbish.

I'm perfectly happy to debate liberals, anarchists or anyone else, but I require a critical, open mind. Fyrefox has both, you have neither. Sadly that's the objective of the left on non-left boards, to fill boards with their rubbish and block any real debate. I'm determined to learn to fight through that.

I will give you a chance to prove me right or you wrong by asking a question.

So if companies now pay payroll, business taxes and they have to pay all their employees enough to pay their taxes, and those costs for the business go away. Why in your numbers do prices not go down?

Your answer is companies are greedy and will keep the money. My answer is the marketplace will prevent that. So here's your chance, I'm not hopeful.

Real debate of what? You're claiming that you can eliminate all taxes and still raise the same amount of revenue.

Your question is dishonest. It could possibly be true if that's what you were proposing, but it's not. You're not only getting rid of those taxes.

 

[Foxfyre]

Looks like 1/2 of SS taxes are deductible for the self-employed. I confused my 401k pre-tax deductions for the SS deduction. Even more reason SS is the worst deal in the history of mankind.

So back to the sales tax. How would a sales tax be worse than income tax on your SS checks?

Yes, the self employed pay ALL the social security contribution - the employee's part and and employer's part. And the employer's l/2 of that is deductible.

The formula is 1/2 of your social security benefits added to any taxable income you receive during the year. If the combined amounts exceed $32k for a married couple or $25k for a single person or zero for married couples filing separately, up to 80% of your social security benefits are taxable. But social security benefits under those caps are not subject to income tax.

With a sales tax you pay tax on everything you spend.

Seriously, given how pitiful the social security checks usually are, that isn't really a biggie. But we have already paid taxes on almost all of our retirement savings and investments. And to have to pay tax again via a sales tax when we spend that money just seems extra burdensome.

It would be a wash only for those who used the tax deferred plans for their IRAs etc.--we do have some money in those and yes, that would likely be a wash--but the Roth IRA's and similar vehicles are not tax deferred and many went that route simply to avoid higher taxes on their retirement income by pre-paying those taxes at the time the income was received. And believe me we are nowhere near rich.

Ok, don't get mad this is a fair and serious question:

By your tax fairness doctrine of making sure everyone pays the same tax rates, each time we raise tax rates, for example by raising SS taxes to save SS, we should go back and charge everyone that got the earlier discounted tax rate additional back taxes to make up for the SS taxes that we did not take from your salary when you were paying SS taxes at the discounted rate? Same with income tax rates and deductibles, all tax rates should be retroactively calculated to account for previous income and previous taxes paid. Or is your fairness doctrine a one way street?

No, that is not what I am saying. Anyway a flat income tax would do away with social security taxes. If it is retained as a federal program, it would be funded from the flat tax just like everything else. The federal government would have to give up the criminally irresponsible baseline budgeting they currently do and start making real budgets and pick and choose what will get funded and what won't from available funds.

A flat tax would start forward on new income and not be retroactive.

You don't have any earned income from any source? You won't owe any taxes. You do have earned income from any source, you will owe whatever percent--I like the 10 percent idea best--just like everybody else.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes, that's exactly what he's telling you. And you're right to be skeptical, but it's complete rubbish.

I'm perfectly happy to debate liberals, anarchists or anyone else, but I require a critical, open mind. Fyrefox has both, you have neither. Sadly that's the objective of the left on non-left boards, to fill boards with their rubbish and block any real debate. I'm determined to learn to fight through that.

I will give you a chance to prove me right or you wrong by asking a question.

So if companies now pay payroll, business taxes and they have to pay all their employees enough to pay their taxes, and those costs for the business go away. Why in your numbers do prices not go down?

Your answer is companies are greedy and will keep the money. My answer is the marketplace will prevent that. So here's your chance, I'm not hopeful.

Real debate of what? You're claiming that you can eliminate all taxes and still raise the same amount of revenue.

Your question is dishonest. It could possibly be true if that's what you were proposing, but it's not. You're not only getting rid of those taxes.

That's assuming the government needs the same amount of revenue to perform its constitutionally assigned fuctions. If it wants that much money it dang sure would have to look at regulatory inhibitors to economic growth, etc. etc. etc. and get busy encouraging robust economic activity. Otherwise it just might not be able to fund that study to see if pigeons follow the same economic principles as humans and it might decide that the IRS doesn't need $50 million to make funny videos at expensive resorts, etc. etc.

 

[Polk]

I'm perfectly happy to debate liberals, anarchists or anyone else, but I require a critical, open mind. Fyrefox has both, you have neither. Sadly that's the objective of the left on non-left boards, to fill boards with their rubbish and block any real debate. I'm determined to learn to fight through that.

I will give you a chance to prove me right or you wrong by asking a question.

So if companies now pay payroll, business taxes and they have to pay all their employees enough to pay their taxes, and those costs for the business go away. Why in your numbers do prices not go down?

Your answer is companies are greedy and will keep the money. My answer is the marketplace will prevent that. So here's your chance, I'm not hopeful.

Real debate of what? You're claiming that you can eliminate all taxes and still raise the same amount of revenue.

Your question is dishonest. It could possibly be true if that's what you were proposing, but it's not. You're not only getting rid of those taxes.

That's assuming the government needs the same amount of revenue to perform its constitutionally assigned fuctions. If it wants that much money it dang sure would have to look at regulatory inhibitors to economic growth, etc. etc. etc. and get busy encouraging robust economic activity. Otherwise it just might not be able to fund that study to see if pigeons follow the same economic principles as humans and it might decide that the IRS doesn't need $50 million to make funny videos at expensive resorts, etc. etc.

No, it's assuming the FairTax does what it's supporters claim it does, which is produce the same amount of revenue as the current tax code.

 

[Foxfyre]

Real debate of what? You're claiming that you can eliminate all taxes and still raise the same amount of revenue.

Your question is dishonest. It could possibly be true if that's what you were proposing, but it's not. You're not only getting rid of those taxes.

That's assuming the government needs the same amount of revenue to perform its constitutionally assigned fuctions. If it wants that much money it dang sure would have to look at regulatory inhibitors to economic growth, etc. etc. etc. and get busy encouraging robust economic activity. Otherwise it just might not be able to fund that study to see if pigeons follow the same economic principles as humans and it might decide that the IRS doesn't need $50 million to make funny videos at expensive resorts, etc. etc.

No, it's assuming the FairTax does what it's supporters claim it does, which is produce the same amount of revenue as the current tax code.

That has never been my goal since I think the government is wasting more money than it spends for the benefit of anybody. My goal is to level the playing field of the tax code, make it far more difficult to manipulate to increase the power, prestige, and personal wealth of those in government, and to produce sufficient money to cover what the government needs to do rather than all the things opportunistic politicians and bureaucrats want to do.

 

[Polk]

That's assuming the government needs the same amount of revenue to perform its constitutionally assigned fuctions. If it wants that much money it dang sure would have to look at regulatory inhibitors to economic growth, etc. etc. etc. and get busy encouraging robust economic activity. Otherwise it just might not be able to fund that study to see if pigeons follow the same economic principles as humans and it might decide that the IRS doesn't need $50 million to make funny videos at expensive resorts, etc. etc.

No, it's assuming the FairTax does what it's supporters claim it does, which is produce the same amount of revenue as the current tax code.

That has never been my goal since I think the government is wasting more money than it spends for the benefit of anybody. My goal is to level the playing field of the tax code, make it far more difficult to manipulate to increase the power, prestige, and personal wealth of those in government, and to produce sufficient money to cover what the government needs to do rather than all the things opportunistic politicians and bureaucrats want to do.

That's fine, but understand that's a different question. The FairTax movement claims their proposal is revenue neutral.

For prices to remain the same under "FairTax" as they are today, one, by definition, must be believe that not only are all business taxes baked into the cost of goods, but that all individual taxes are as well on top of the individuals paying those taxes.

 

[bornright]

I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "the rich need to pay their fair share!"

But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range, but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called communists.

Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for al with this poll.

Liberals, what should be the "fair share" the rich have to pay in taxes?

Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.

You either misunderstand the issue or are misrepresenting it.

The issue has nothing to do with a ‘fair share ‘ or some ‘specific number.’

The issue concerns the fallacy of ‘trickle-down economics,’ where taxes are lowered for high-income earners, yet tax rates remain the same for middle and low-income earners.

You are confusing the capital gains tax with federal income tax. Even the capital gains tax is higher than the low income earner's income tax.

 

[Foxfyre]

No, it's assuming the FairTax does what it's supporters claim it does, which is produce the same amount of revenue as the current tax code.

That has never been my goal since I think the government is wasting more money than it spends for the benefit of anybody. My goal is to level the playing field of the tax code, make it far more difficult to manipulate to increase the power, prestige, and personal wealth of those in government, and to produce sufficient money to cover what the government needs to do rather than all the things opportunistic politicians and bureaucrats want to do.

That's fine, but understand that's a different question. The FairTax movement claims their proposal is revenue neutral.

For prices to remain the same under "FairTax" as they are today, one, by definition, must be believe that not only are all business taxes baked into the cost of goods, but that all individual taxes are as well on top of the individuals paying those taxes.

Is that what they've said, or has the argument been that the Fair Tax would not reduce our buying power or significantly raise the cost of goods and services? I don't think I've seen an argument that a Fair Tax would be revenue neutral for the federal government. If that is an argument they are making, that could be another reason I would likely oppose a Fair Tax.

 

[RKMBrown]

Yes, the self employed pay ALL the social security contribution - the employee's part and and employer's part. And the employer's l/2 of that is deductible.

The formula is 1/2 of your social security benefits added to any taxable income you receive during the year. If the combined amounts exceed $32k for a married couple or $25k for a single person or zero for married couples filing separately, up to 80% of your social security benefits are taxable. But social security benefits under those caps are not subject to income tax.

With a sales tax you pay tax on everything you spend.

Seriously, given how pitiful the social security checks usually are, that isn't really a biggie. But we have already paid taxes on almost all of our retirement savings and investments. And to have to pay tax again via a sales tax when we spend that money just seems extra burdensome.

It would be a wash only for those who used the tax deferred plans for their IRAs etc.--we do have some money in those and yes, that would likely be a wash--but the Roth IRA's and similar vehicles are not tax deferred and many went that route simply to avoid higher taxes on their retirement income by pre-paying those taxes at the time the income was received. And believe me we are nowhere near rich.

Ok, don't get mad this is a fair and serious question:

By your tax fairness doctrine of making sure everyone pays the same tax rates, each time we raise tax rates, for example by raising SS taxes to save SS, we should go back and charge everyone that got the earlier discounted tax rate additional back taxes to make up for the SS taxes that we did not take from your salary when you were paying SS taxes at the discounted rate? Same with income tax rates and deductibles, all tax rates should be retroactively calculated to account for previous income and previous taxes paid. Or is your fairness doctrine a one way street?

No, that is not what I am saying. Anyway a flat income tax would do away with social security taxes. If it is retained as a federal program, it would be funded from the flat tax just like everything else. The federal government would have to give up the criminally irresponsible baseline budgeting they currently do and start making real budgets and pick and choose what will get funded and what won't from available funds.

A flat tax would start forward on new income and not be retroactive.

You don't have any earned income from any source? You won't owe any taxes. You do have earned income from any source, you will owe whatever percent--I like the 10 percent idea best--just like everybody else.

A sales or fair tax would also start forward on new sales and not be retroactive. I understand that your income is currently less than it used to be, so of course you are ok increasing and/or putting any amount of pain of taxation on income. I get that. I'm sure most people would agree to system of taxation that did not affect them.

I suppose maybe we should just go and do what the socialists are doing in Europe, enact an confiscatory tax on assets. For example, take 5% of everyone's liquid accounts, 401k, etc. and charge another 5% for existing physical assets. Can't pay it? Start selling off your stocks and home get a reverse mortgage. We all need to share the pain together.

 

[RKMBrown]

That has never been my goal since I think the government is wasting more money than it spends for the benefit of anybody. My goal is to level the playing field of the tax code, make it far more difficult to manipulate to increase the power, prestige, and personal wealth of those in government, and to produce sufficient money to cover what the government needs to do rather than all the things opportunistic politicians and bureaucrats want to do.

That's fine, but understand that's a different question. The FairTax movement claims their proposal is revenue neutral.

For prices to remain the same under "FairTax" as they are today, one, by definition, must be believe that not only are all business taxes baked into the cost of goods, but that all individual taxes are as well on top of the individuals paying those taxes.

Is that what they've said, or has the argument been that the Fair Tax would not reduce our buying power or significantly raise the cost of goods and services? I don't think I've seen an argument that a Fair Tax would be revenue neutral for the federal government. If that is an argument they are making, that could be another reason I would likely oppose a Fair Tax.

I get the idea of less revenue for Govco and limit them to spending only what they have. But most of the spending is for "benefit" checks. So after you cut out defense we'd still be short money. The problem is the benefit system.

 

[Foxfyre]

Ok, don't get mad this is a fair and serious question:

By your tax fairness doctrine of making sure everyone pays the same tax rates, each time we raise tax rates, for example by raising SS taxes to save SS, we should go back and charge everyone that got the earlier discounted tax rate additional back taxes to make up for the SS taxes that we did not take from your salary when you were paying SS taxes at the discounted rate? Same with income tax rates and deductibles, all tax rates should be retroactively calculated to account for previous income and previous taxes paid. Or is your fairness doctrine a one way street?

No, that is not what I am saying. Anyway a flat income tax would do away with social security taxes. If it is retained as a federal program, it would be funded from the flat tax just like everything else. The federal government would have to give up the criminally irresponsible baseline budgeting they currently do and start making real budgets and pick and choose what will get funded and what won't from available funds.

A flat tax would start forward on new income and not be retroactive.

You don't have any earned income from any source? You won't owe any taxes. You do have earned income from any source, you will owe whatever percent--I like the 10 percent idea best--just like everybody else.

A sales or fair tax would also start forward on new sales and not be retroactive. I understand that your income is currently less than it used to be, so of course you are ok increasing and/or putting any amount of pain of taxation on income. I get that. I'm sure most people would agree to system of taxation that did not affect them.

I suppose maybe we should just go and do what the socialists are doing in Europe, enact an confiscatory tax on assets. For example, take 5% of everyone's liquid accounts, 401k, etc. and charge another 5% for existing physical assets. Can't pay it? Start selling off your stocks and home get a reverse mortgage. We all need to share the pain together.

Okay, you just went from debating to ad hominem insults. I have at no time suggested that I am okay with any amount of pain with any form of taxation, and it is highly insulting to accuse me of that after I went into some detail earlier to explain how a sales tax could be more painful to the low income people than higher income people. And so far none of you Fair Tax people have been able to give me a good rebuttal for that concern.

Nor have you addressed the questions I have raised re what products the Fair tax would be assessed on at at what points of the production chain. Unless you are willing to at least look at these concerns, it still won't be me but it might be somebody who is willing to inflict a lot of unnecessary pain on people purely because they were unwilling to connect all the dots.

 

[RKMBrown]

No, that is not what I am saying. Anyway a flat income tax would do away with social security taxes. If it is retained as a federal program, it would be funded from the flat tax just like everything else. The federal government would have to give up the criminally irresponsible baseline budgeting they currently do and start making real budgets and pick and choose what will get funded and what won't from available funds.

A flat tax would start forward on new income and not be retroactive.

You don't have any earned income from any source? You won't owe any taxes. You do have earned income from any source, you will owe whatever percent--I like the 10 percent idea best--just like everybody else.

A sales or fair tax would also start forward on new sales and not be retroactive. I understand that your income is currently less than it used to be, so of course you are ok increasing and/or putting any amount of pain of taxation on income. I get that. I'm sure most people would agree to system of taxation that did not affect them.

I suppose maybe we should just go and do what the socialists are doing in Europe, enact an confiscatory tax on assets. For example, take 5% of everyone's liquid accounts, 401k, etc. and charge another 5% for existing physical assets. Can't pay it? Start selling off your stocks and home get a reverse mortgage. We all need to share the pain together.

Okay, you just went from debating to ad hominem insults. I have at no time suggested that I am okay with any amount of pain with any form of taxation, and it is highly insulting to accuse me of that after I went into some detail earlier to explain how a sales tax could be more painful to the low income people than higher income people. And so far none of you Fair Tax people have been able to give me a good rebuttal for that concern.

Nor have you addressed the questions I have raised re what products the Fair tax would be assessed on at at what points of the production chain. Unless you are willing to at least look at these concerns, it still won't be me but it might be somebody who is willing to inflict a lot of unnecessary pain on people purely because they were unwilling to connect all the dots.

Pointing out that a desire for less pain is a normal human trait is not an insult. I never said that you are "okay with any amount of pain with any form of taxation." Quite the contrary, I merely pointed out the opposite, which is that I fully understand that you are not ok "with any amount of pain" and are also not ok "with any form of taxation" and that this is a normal human trait to reject pain.

Not sure how you missed the many direct answers to your often repeated question re "what products the Fair tax would be assessed on at at what points of the production chain." The many answers even included links to explicit explanations and lists. In summary the fair tax would be like the current sales taxes collected by the states. It would be assessed basically at the retail side of production. The products affected would include things like toys, cars, most of the stuff you get at Walmart in the non food sections,... The products not affected would include basic necessities such as prescription drugs, flour, milk, fruit, the roof over your head, etc.

Yes the poor would have to pay the same sales tax on a flat panel tv that anyone else would have to pay. Voila... fair tax.

 

[kaz]

Now wait a minute. Currently the gross receipts tax on a loaf of bread in Albuquerque is 7%. The bread retails for about $1.25 plus tax or $1.34 at check out.

Now then, if all things remain the same, a flat tax would impose a 13% tax on that loaf of bread.

$1.25 plus 9 cents local gross receipts tax plus 17 cents fair tax = $1.51 for that same loaf of bread. You're telling me that the base cost of that loaf of bread will be reduced by at least 17 cents because of tax savings in the production, wholesale, and retail process?

Otherwise I will be taxed again on the money I use that was already taxed--quite heavily I might add--when I earned it.

Remember the fair tax replaces all other taxes, it's not added onto them. So, for the loaf of bread and your numbers:

$1.25 + 9 (local sales tax) + 17 (revenue neutral Fair Tax) - 17 (eliminated taxes that were included in the price) = $1.34.

Remember the business is no longer paying business tax, payroll taxes, unemployment tax, ...

Now here's the first kicker, think of all the money businesses spend on taxes that don't generate government revenue. Tax accountants, tax lawyers, time to fill in forms, tax disincentives to make economically decisions, ... Those costs go away too.

Now here's the second kicker, everyone who does cash work now and aren't paying taxes are going to be taxpayers because they pay tax when they buy things.

Now here's the third kicker, everyone selling goods in our economy (domestic and foreign companies) are paying the same taxes, which helps US firms compete.

And here's the biggest kicker of all, instead of driving out US companies, we're a tax haven and companies will actually come here.

The cost of the loaf of bread will quickly go down to less than $1.25. There is no transition to be made. On 12/31 we have our current crocked system, on 1/1 we go to the Fair Tax. Initially prices are stable, then they fall.

And you know what octopi those things are. Companies will get creative like they do now and find more advantages, only now they do it with a tax code that drives inefficiency and then they will do it with a market that drives efficiency.

And that doesn't even cover the liberty and privacy aspects of businesses and individuals reporting every piece of their financial data to government and politicians using the code to amass power.

The bolded portion literally claims he's thought of a tax system that can generate free money.

Hence the term ... wait for it ... wait some more ... almost there ... almost ... Revenue Neutral ...

 

[Foxfyre]

A sales or fair tax would also start forward on new sales and not be retroactive. I understand that your income is currently less than it used to be, so of course you are ok increasing and/or putting any amount of pain of taxation on income. I get that. I'm sure most people would agree to system of taxation that did not affect them.

I suppose maybe we should just go and do what the socialists are doing in Europe, enact an confiscatory tax on assets. For example, take 5% of everyone's liquid accounts, 401k, etc. and charge another 5% for existing physical assets. Can't pay it? Start selling off your stocks and home get a reverse mortgage. We all need to share the pain together.

Okay, you just went from debating to ad hominem insults. I have at no time suggested that I am okay with any amount of pain with any form of taxation, and it is highly insulting to accuse me of that after I went into some detail earlier to explain how a sales tax could be more painful to the low income people than higher income people. And so far none of you Fair Tax people have been able to give me a good rebuttal for that concern.

Nor have you addressed the questions I have raised re what products the Fair tax would be assessed on at at what points of the production chain. Unless you are willing to at least look at these concerns, it still won't be me but it might be somebody who is willing to inflict a lot of unnecessary pain on people purely because they were unwilling to connect all the dots.

Pointing out that a desire for less pain is a normal human trait is not an insult. I never said that you are "okay with any amount of pain with any form of taxation." Quite the contrary, I merely pointed out the opposite, which is that I fully understand that you are not ok "with any amount of pain" and are also not ok "with any form of taxation" and that this is a normal human trait to reject pain.

Not sure how you missed the many direct answers to your often repeated question re "what products the Fair tax would be assessed on at at what points of the production chain." The many answers even included links to explicit explanations and lists. In summary the fair tax would be like the current sales taxes collected by the states. It would be assessed basically at the retail side of production. The products affected would include things like toys, cars, most of the stuff you get at Walmart in the non food sections,... The products not affected would include basic necessities such as prescription drugs, flour, milk, fruit, the roof over your head, etc.

Yes the poor would have to pay the same sales tax on a flat panel tv that anyone else would have to pay. Voila... fair tax.

Excerpting your specific line that I objected to:
I understand that your income is currently less than it used to be, so of course you are ok increasing and/or putting any amount of pain of taxation on income. I get that. I'm sure most people would agree to system of taxation that did not affect them. Now I may be getting old, and I can accept your explanation that you didn't intend to say that, but I am still sharp enough to read that you said it. And it sure wasn't qualified by anything that preceded or followed it.

But okay. So you want to assess tax at the retail level only. What happens if I buy my flat screen TV in Mexico?

And all those other purchases by those who make and assemble all the components of that flat screen TV are not taxed? And you don't see all sorts of ways to wheel and deal like crazy at home, tax free, but wholesale the product to Mexico or Canada or Grand Cayman or wherever to sell back to us retail?

 

[RKMBrown]

Okay, you just went from debating to ad hominem insults. I have at no time suggested that I am okay with any amount of pain with any form of taxation, and it is highly insulting to accuse me of that after I went into some detail earlier to explain how a sales tax could be more painful to the low income people than higher income people. And so far none of you Fair Tax people have been able to give me a good rebuttal for that concern.

Nor have you addressed the questions I have raised re what products the Fair tax would be assessed on at at what points of the production chain. Unless you are willing to at least look at these concerns, it still won't be me but it might be somebody who is willing to inflict a lot of unnecessary pain on people purely because they were unwilling to connect all the dots.

Pointing out that a desire for less pain is a normal human trait is not an insult. I never said that you are "okay with any amount of pain with any form of taxation." Quite the contrary, I merely pointed out the opposite, which is that I fully understand that you are not ok "with any amount of pain" and are also not ok "with any form of taxation" and that this is a normal human trait to reject pain.

Not sure how you missed the many direct answers to your often repeated question re "what products the Fair tax would be assessed on at at what points of the production chain." The many answers even included links to explicit explanations and lists. In summary the fair tax would be like the current sales taxes collected by the states. It would be assessed basically at the retail side of production. The products affected would include things like toys, cars, most of the stuff you get at Walmart in the non food sections,... The products not affected would include basic necessities such as prescription drugs, flour, milk, fruit, the roof over your head, etc.

Yes the poor would have to pay the same sales tax on a flat panel tv that anyone else would have to pay. Voila... fair tax.

Excerpting your specific line that I objected to:
I understand that your income is currently less than it used to be, so of course you are ok increasing and/or putting any amount of pain of taxation on income. I get that. I'm sure most people would agree to system of taxation that did not affect them. Now I may be getting old, and I can accept your explanation that you didn't intend to say that, but I am still sharp enough to read that you said it. And it sure wasn't qualified by anything that preceded or followed it.

But okay. So you want to assess tax at the retail level only. What happens if I buy my flat screen TV in Mexico?

And all those other purchases by those who make and assemble all the components of that flat screen TV are not taxed? And you don't see all sorts of ways to wheel and deal like crazy at home, tax free, but wholesale the product to Mexico or Canada or Grand Cayman or wherever to sell back to us retail?

to the point of contention... My knee jerk is from your earlier post that said you prefer income tax over sales tax cause you already paid income tax and don't want to be double taxed. Being that I've been double, triple, and quadruple taxed most of my life I understand where you are coming from. I understood you to mean that you prefer a system of income tax over sales tax because you are already invested disproportionately in the current system of pain. My jerkish comments were meant to provide you with poison pills associated with the current system in the hopes to argue/nudge you to consider that the current system is about to be changed one way or another. I added the word pain.. cause that's what I see taxes as.. pain. <smiley face so you know I sound grumpy but I'm smiling and pls don't take me seriously when I pick on the greatest generation (who should have known better than to support pyramid schemes)>

Anyhow To your very good question on sales tax avoidance... we also have states that don't charge sales tax, and the states that do have varying sales tax per region. The answer to that paradox is that the sales tax is due to the state/region where your primary homestead is. Voila.. problem solved. Minor items like the number 1 from McDonalds yeah you can get away with not sending that sales tax to TX when you are visiting GA. Even amazon now charges you sales tax based on your home address.

Thus if you buy a TV in mexico, but live in TX you owe the sales tax in TX.