Fair Tax Poll

[Finder]

Poll question: Fair Tax Poll

I am curious how DUers feel about the proposal for a national sales tax and the abolishing of the Fed Income tax.

[bryant69]

1. The fair tax

In this context fair means "Screws the poor and benefits the wealthy." Because frankly the wealthy don't get enough breaks in this country.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[BlackHeart]

2. I don't know about your area

but the county fair here is having a tugh enough time without any added taxes.:)
So I must vote "no more fair taxes". Hmm... maybe that will be my slogan when I run for office, yeah that should work.

[LSK]

3. against

Poor and middle class people HAVE TO SPEND most if not all their income to survive. Im assuming sales taxes would have to double to make up the difference. The rich easily pocket way more than they have to spend and would not be hurt by this tax. Its just another lame excuse for the rich NOT TO PAY TAXES.

And its also more rightwing doublespeak to call it a FAIR tax.

[electropop]

4. First I've heard of this one. Please explain.

If it's a proposal to eliminate the income tax and replace it with a sales tax, it would be regressive and therefore I would oppose it. If it's coming from the right, and it's named "Fair Tax," then of course it's an UNfair Tax proposal, expressed in GOP Backwards Talk.

[medeak]

5. It works in Europe

and good enough for me. Lord..pay 39.7% and writing check yesterday was NOT a good time.

edited to say...my tax return wieghed more than my dog. It would be soooo nice to simplify

[LSK]

6. but the Europeans get something for their taxes (healthcare)

We do not.

[medeak]

9. indeed

and that's why I support it...if it can pay healthcare and all the progressive programs in Europe that we don't have...it must be a solvent idea.

[LSK]

11. you cant have one without the other

Remove the cost of healthcare from the poor and middle class and then it might work for them. However that is ignoring our huge national debt issue which is not included in this simplistic discussion.

It will not work here until we significantly make a dent in reducing our national debt which will not happen for decades.

[lastliberalintexas]

94. Not as the sole source of revenue, though

And that is what most "Fair" Tax supporters advocate, abolishing the income tax in favor of this extremely regressive tax providing the sole (or at least primary) source of revenue for the federal government.

[olaus]

7. I support the

idea, I have read about the pros and cons and I would like to see in get more debate in the public air space. I heard that Mass. has state fair tax is that correct all you from Mass. if so what is rate?

[LSK]

12. do you understand how percentages work?

:shrug:

[Finder]

17. Welcome to DU. I agree it needs at least more public debate.

I think many dismiss it because many conservatives support it.

[mac56]

18. "Many dismiss it because many conservatives support it. "

And you need more of a reason than that?!

[LSK]

22. ok lets discuss it

Person A makes $30k. He has a house, car payment, has to pay utilities, groceries, clothes for the kids, and might want to go out for pizza once a week. Now understand that the tax on most of this doubles to make up for the lost income tax. So now gas is $6 per gallon, a gallon of milk is now $5, etc etc etc. At the end of the year it is not unreasonable to assume that Person A spends all $30k of his income just to live a normal life.

Person B makes $1million. He has a nice house, a nice car, has slightly higher utilities. Gas is still $6 per gallon, milk still costs him $5. Lets say this guy really blows his money a lot. Lets assume he spends $2million for the year. This is something I cannot even comprehend. But assuming this, he still has $1million leftover.


Who did the fair tax help?? Who did it hurt more??

[Finder]

26. Compare it to the taxes being paid today...

by the person making 30k. I don't understand why everyone is focusing on what happens to the millionaires.

Also, the proposed rate is around 24 percent so it would not double prices.

Remember, there would be no fed or fica withheld from the paycheck and the prebate would be a little over 400 a month per taxpayer.

[LSK]

31. why is everyone focusing on mililionaires?

Because of the 8.4 trillion dollar national debt maybe?? Whos better equipped to pay for it without suffering much loss of quality of life?

[mac56]

32. 24 percent?

The Brookings Institute calculates that to pay all current government expenditures while also compensating for such factors as tax evasion, the national sales tax might have to run as high as 67 percent.

[LSK]

33. well you know Republicans and their deficits

They dont way to pay for anything ever.

[Finder]

41. I would never agree to that...yikes

and would love to see a link.

[LSK]

53. heres a link

http://www.federalbudget.com/

[mac56]

57. Here's a link

http://www.brookings.org/comm/policybriefs/pb31.htm

[TheFarseer]

96. 24% is just a ridiculous republican lie to sell the plan

almost as crazy as Iraq oil revenue will pay for the war. I often see 45-55% rate thrown around as an estimate but I think it's hard to say what the rate would need to be because it's hard to say how far people will go to avoid paying the tax (black markets, barter etc.) and how high the tax would need to go to account for that lost revenue. It would just be a mess and the average people would end up getting screwed. Poor people and working class can forget about EIC, child tax credits, dependant care credits and education credits. Oh, and let's see how good auto sales are when a car suddenly costs 30K instead of 20K. Makes me want to buy, buy, buy

[TheFarseer]

111. There would be no FICA?

Who says? Is part of the deal, we get rid of social security too? If there's no FICA and no income tax, how high do you think the national sales tax would need to be? 24% is laughable.

[Finder]

121. Why laughable?

Look at your pay stub and calculate it.

[LSK]

125. because it will not fund $2 trillion just from new products

[TheFarseer]

137. OK

For a single person with no deductions or credits, the tax on 30,000 would be $4761 (1860 Fica and 2901 Federal) It is impossible to tell how much a sales tax would cost a tax payer. What would be taxable? How much would they buy? What would the rate be? So you tell me what it would be and also tell me why we wouldn't pay Fica anymore.

[Finder]

145. Using your figures, the prebate amount is more than current tax paid.

Using an estimate of 400 per month or 4800 annually.

[Finder]

24. I am not into the "Us vs Them" mentality...

in most things. I must admit though, seeing Delay in support gave me pause.lol

[mac56]

40. What more proof do you need?

If a significant number of assholes support the "fair tax", what does that tell you?! I don't mind being "us vs. them" when the other side is made up of assholes.

[PA Democrat]

52. Do you understand the definition of wealth?

Wealth is accumulated when your expenditures are less than your income. People who accumulate wealth will therefore pay a lower percentage of their overall income in a so-called "fair" tax than those who have to spend every penny they make just to make ends meet. What is "fair" about that? Why would you support a tax that shifts the tax burden onto the poor and middle class?

Furthermore, there have been a number of different studies I have read that indicate that the sales tax rate would be over 50%, and not the 24% that you quoted.

[BillZBubb]

8. There is nothing fair about it.

It is another right wing attempt to make the wealthy moreso at the expense of everyone else. As usual the right wing names there scheme in a way that makes it sound beneficial.

No Democrat (DINOs yes) and certainly no progressive would ever support this ripoff.

[Katherine Brengle]

67. I have to agree -- I see 2 major problems --

even a supposedly progressive flat tax that doesn't touch income under a certain line or a supposedly progressive national sales tax that doesn't touch necessity items like food and clothing favor the wealthy and upper middle class.

I see two major problems with both of these tax plans:

1) A flat tax would immediately give a huge tax break to Americans who do not need a tax break. Bush has already done this, and it isn't helping anyone and it isn't helping the economy. I ascribe to the idea of the rich paying higher taxes--call it "the price you pay to exploit working Americans" if you like. I think we should give tax breaks to any employers who offer full health insurance coverage to employees, free or reduced-cost childcare in the workplace, comprehensive maternity/paternity leave for workers, and other much-needed benefits--but employers who shit all over their workers should get no breaks, and the wealthy do the employing in this world.

2) A national sales tax seems fair on its face. You want things, you pay. You live simply, you don't pay. But it is a bad, bad, bad idea. First off, let's remember the key rules of economics here--consumers spend money on products, businesses make money, businesses pay workers, workers become consumers. Endless cycle of payout and profit. If workers are spending, the economy will be good, in other words.

Now, under a national sales tax, consumers would be paying say 20-25% sales tax on non-necessity items. What is necessary and unnecessary will be decided by beaurocrats, which should be enough to turn off conservatives, but that is a whole different argument. Basically, say you want to buy a DVD--you are going to pay $20-30 for a new release that did well at the box office. Add $5 to a $25 DVD, and you have your national sales tax. Now say your state already charges sales tax, as mine does, and add that as well--in my case, another 5%. That's $1.25 additional state sales tax. So I will shell out $31.25 for a DVD.

Doesn't sound like a big deal, and in any case, a DVD is not necessary to my life or health or that of my family, so I have no leg to stand on if I want to complain about this, right?

Okay, now how about this--I live in an apartment building in a relatively low-income neighborhood. My landlord is a jerk who couldn't care less about the upkeep of the building or about his tenants. My heater breaks in the middle of the winter, and I can't get him to come and fix it, so I go over to Ye Olde Discount Store and buy a few small electric space heaters and some extra blankets so my kids don't get sick from being in the cold. The space heaters are $30 apiece and the blankets are $25 apiece. I buy three of each, one each for myself and one each for my kids, to the tune of $165.

Now I am at the register and it's time to add my 30% combined state and national sales tax. That's an additional $49.50.

If I have plenty of money, a national sales tax is a great idea--especially if I know anything about avoiding taxes in general, as many of our wealthier American brethren indeed do.

If I am lower on the economic ladder, a national sales tax puts an undue burden upon me and my family. Imagine paying 30% tax on a car--not such a big deal for someone who has oodles of money. Big deal for someone making $30,000 a year with a kid or two at home.

[Finder]

103. Don't forget the monthly prebate of over $400.00. n/t

[AllieB]

10. Against. It is a tax on the working man.

If Grover Norquist is for it, that should be a red flag for everyone.

[mac56]

15. And Neil Boortz.

The guy who makes Limbaugh look moderate.

[AllieB]

19. So you know something is SERIOUSLY wrong

if those two are championing it!

[Iris]

119. and who also can't even balance his own checkbook

His wife does it.

[Terran1212]

13. My Congressman is obessed with it; in fact many Georgians are

Terrible idea though.

[mac56]

14. Finder, did you see the comments I posted on the other thread?

I'd be eager to get your reactions to them.

I'm a-gin it.

[Finder]

20. Just looked it up and...

I do think some of your points are valid and before any National Sales tax was implemented, safeguards would need to be put in place. A few of your other concerns are unfounded, since there is no paperwork required by citizens under the proposed plans. Enforcement would be on businesses not consumers.

[mac56]

29. I call bullshit.

"No paperwork required by citizens under the proposed plans."

The government wants to ensure that you’re being taxed at the correct rate, and that you’re paying every nickel. And of course, they need to be able to send your rebate check for essential items, which is what Boortz’s plan calls for. What are they going to do? Either you'll have to keep a tally of what you buy, or the government will do it for you! Boortz even suggested the use of an electronic card to track purchases. Hello, Big Brother.

"Enforcement would be on businesses not consumers."

And you think that's fair? To quote the Mises Institute: "From doctors and lawyers to garbage collectors and tree trimmers — multitudes of individuals and businesses that never collected taxes before will be turned into tax collectors for the federal government. Will a teenage babysitter be required to collect the 'fair tax' from her neighbors?" "Mow a yard — collect the tax. Babysit — collect the tax. Repair a car — collect the tax. If you don't collect the 'fair tax' then you are a criminal."

"Safeguards would need to be put in place".

So you don't trust the current tax collectors, but you trust them to safeguard the "fair tax"?! Puh-leez.

The real winners under the "fair tax" would be the very wealthy - who also would be in the best position to evade taxes by, for example, buying their yachts in the Bahamas.

[Finder]

39. Every one would get the rebate check...

to cover essentials. Since there is no rate differences, the gov has no need to check if anyone is paying the correct rate as you state.

I am in a pilot program now as a small biz to test the impact of compliance. A few glitches but no different than state tax compliance.

The safeguards I mentioned are to prevent an income tax in addition to the national sales tax.


The Mises Institute is the best source I have found for credible debate points.IMO I agree with many of the weaknesses they have pointed out and only through debate can they be shored up.

http://www.mises.org/story/1814

[mac56]

51. But the government will want to know what you buy

and where and for how much. Especially if they maintain Boortz's "used goods" loophole. Black market, anybody? Suddenly everything will become "used goods" - or - flea markets and garage sales will become major targets. The government won't let that loophole exist for long. Ta-dah! Extensive record-keeping and auditing!

And note that the current proposal leaves the door wide open for "an income tax in addition to the national sales tax". Don't be so naïve to think that the feds won't add an income tax on top of it. The current proposal specifically doesn’t repeal the 16th amendment.

[Finder]

59. I would not support it without a repeal.

The gov would have no requirement placed on citizens to declare what they purchased. All reporting would be done by the business. Businesses already need to report anyway so it is not a big difference as far as keepng track.

[mac56]

65. "No requirement placed on citizens to declare what they purchased"

Wait till tax revenues drop and the black market careens out of control.

"I would not support it without a repeal."

Good luck with that.

[Tactical Progressive]

16. I'm guessing some right-winger named this the 'Fair' tax

Since every word out of their mouths is a lie, including "a" and "the", then it can be safely derived that this tax should be accurately labeled the 'Unfair Tax'.

Republicans know that your average American doesn't go much past the title, hence the need to start with the big lie right out front.

We should call it something like the Fair-for-Republicans Tax.

[IChing]

21. Fair Tax= Clean Sky initative=no child left behind= war is peace=

"Arbeit Macht Frei" (work will make you free)

[LSK]

23. Patriot Act

[leftstreet]

27. Healthy Forests Initiative

[mac56]

35. Don't forget "No Child Left Behind".

nm

[LSK]

36. Operation Iraqi Freedom

Yeah, they are free to be blown up now.

[MsTryska]

25. The "Fair Tax" is regressive tax that let's the truly rich off the hook

As a percentage of income, who spends the most on sales taxable goods?


you me and the rest of us that work for a living.


we're the ones driving the economic engine.


whilst the truly rich are living off the interest on their wealth.

they may pay the same amount, or possibly more (since they may buy higher price-tag goods)on sales tax, but as a percentage of income, they'd be paying less tax.

[Idioteque]

28. Just because Republicans support it, doesn't mean it's bad...

...it had Democratic support until Pelosi unfairly told members that they weren't allowed to cosponsor it.

The FairTax isn't really a liberal or conservative issue. It is a common sense bill that will do wonders for the economy and simplify the tax system

First of all, Norquist doesn't support the FairTax...he supports the FLAT tax. The flat tax is very unfair and very regressive.

The Fairtax is a national retail sales tax. It replaces all income taxes and payroll taxes. While a sales tax would normally be regressive, every family will recieve a monthly rebate check equal to the tax times the cost of spending up to the poverty line. This untaxes the poor and makes the tax rate higher for those who spend more. Thus, the Fairtax is a progressive tax.

Here are just a few reasons why progressives should support the FairTax.

1. It makes the tax system much simpler. This means that there will be no more deductions or loopholes for the wealthy to take advantage of.

2. It will put lots of lobbyists out of business. Most lobbying is done for special interest provisions in the tax code.

3. Money that is spent on the IRS will be saved. It can be put to better use in the economy.

4. Only new goods and services are taxed. This encourages recycling and effecient use (good for the environment). It also allows you to avoid the tax by buying used goods.

5. It gets rid of the regressive payroll taxes for SS and Medicare. It also fully funds them. There will be no more need for "reform".

. The tax WILL on all goods sold in the US, imported or domsetic. It will not, however, be placed on goods exported. This will make the United States a very good place to do business. It will help stop outsourcing when companies want to hire Americans.


I seriously encourage my fellow progressives to read up about the FairTax. I am not a closet Republican and neither is Mike Gravel. It won't decrease revenue and it won't hurt the poor and working class.

http://www.fairtax.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax

Oh, by the way... Neil Boortz is an asshat. That doesn't mean he isn't right on this.

[BillZBubb]

87. What utter nonsense!

"1. It makes the tax system much simpler. This means that there will be no more deductions or loopholes for the wealthy to take advantage of."

Absurd. They won't have to take advantage of any loopholes. They will be given the biggest loophole of all. Currently the top 10% of wage earners pay about 34% of all income taxes (a number that is already far too low). Do they account for 34% of all spending? If not, tax revenues will have to be made up by the rest of the population.

The numbers do not add up. The tax rate will have to be painfully high to match current revenues. Unless you believe in the supply side interpretation of course. If so, you've had too much Kool Aid.

The middle class, many of whom currently use mortgage interest expenses to reduce their taxes will lose that right out of the box.

"2. It will put lots of lobbyists out of business. Most lobbying is done for special interest provisions in the tax code."

Sure it will! If you believe that, you believe Saddam had WMDs. Once the lobbyists have got a wealthy based tax code, they'll move on to other targets like destroying worker protections and environmental protections.

"3. Money that is spent on the IRS will be saved. It can be put to better use in the economy."

Oh please! You have no idea how money spent on the IRs will be used. There will still be a large expense to collect the sales tax. If you believe the IRS and collection requirements/problems will go away, you are naive.

"4. Only new goods and services are taxed. This encourages recycling and effecient use (good for the environment). It also allows you to avoid the tax by buying used goods."

What is an "old" service?

"5. It gets rid of the regressive payroll taxes for SS and Medicare. It also fully funds them. There will be no more need for "reform"."

Do the math, this is a pipe dream without an incredibly high tax rate. I also guarantee that, your fellow true believers will try to reduce the rate by cutting SS and Medicare along with a host of other social programs.

[ima_sinnic]

89. Boortz IS more than an asshat, he is a greed-head lying slimeball

therefore I will RUN from anything he promotes. he indicates on a daily basis that he has only sneering contempt for the poor, for Katrina victims, for students, for women, for Muslims, for Iraqis, Saudis, Iranians, and Mexicans.
He will be the first to tell you that he could give a rat's ass about any of those groups, so why should I think all of a sudden he cares about being "fair"?
As usual these pigs have an AGENDA hidden in plain sight behind their coded doublespeak. Whether you're shillin or just plain willin without a clue, I ain't buyin.

[mac56]

92. "It will put lots of lobbyists out of business."

Bullshit.

"What do you mean the tax is the same for bibles as it is for pornography? Are you saying that someone buying good, wholesome Iowa corn has to pay the same tax as someone who buys French wine? A poor family pays the same sales tax on baby food that a rich bachelor spends on his sports car?"

Lobbyists will be wetting their pants over this.

[4_TN_TITANS]

30. Flat income tax....

With a sales tax, the poorest pay the same for a gallon of milk as the richest among us.

[mac56]

34. Right.

And the poorest can afford it the least.

[Egalitariat]

44. With an income tax, your statement is true as well. My local grocer

doesn't ask how much I make before he decides what to charge me for milk.

[Finder]

47. Nor would the Fair Tax system. n/t

[LSK]

56. huh? that doesnt make any sense

[flaminbats]

37. we all support a fair tax..

we support free government, no deaths, no problems, no disease, freedom without laws to obey, and a booming economy that benefits everyone while hurting nobody.

I don't oppose a national sales tax, perhaps it might work in addition to the other taxes. I oppose abolishing the other taxes..with the unproven fantasy that the national sales tax alone could raise sufficient revenue.

[nonconformist]

38. Do NOT support. It's a regressive tax.

Poor, working class, even middle class people spend nearly all of their income. Rich people spend a small percentage.

[Idioteque]

43. Have you even read it?

Yes, a regular sales tax would be regressive. The FairTax, however, comes with a rebate that gives each family a check each month for the cost of the tax on spending up to the poverty level.

Families at the povery level who spend every dime of their money will pay ZERO taxes.

Families who spend 2x the povery level will pay an 11.5% in taxes.

The more you spend, the higher percent you pay in taxes up to 23%.

The cost of goods will decrease due to the removal of payroll taxes from the cost. Also, because families won't have to pay the income tax, their take home pay will be much larger to begin with.

[nonconformist]

46. Yes. A rebate is all well and good, but people need their money now

Poor people are going to have a very difficult time making ends meet while waiting for that yearly check. And rich people with means will easily be able to "work around" the tax by making unclaimed purchases overseas.

[Finder]

50. It is a prebate..they get a check each month...

before actually spending.

[nonconformist]

86. Touche, I mistyped yearly for monthly

In any event, the poor already pay zero tax, and the extra money they would get by not having income taxes deducted from each paycheck is nominal.

Overall, it would DECREASE spending and INCREASE the deficit. People simply wouldn't buy as many goods. The people with means will simply find ways to avoid most of it, and you will see an increase in offshoring, outsourcing and insourcing.

[LSK]

60. so it will create even larger deficits than i thought

Thanks for the info.

[Idioteque]

71. It is revenue neutral, it will not increase the deficit at all...

...also the resultant economic growth will cause even more revenue to be collected , perhaps enough for the rate to be decreased.

[LSK]

73. what resultant economic growth???

How does having less money in the hands of the middle class stimulate the economy but more money collecting interest in millionaires banks help the economy???

Sounds like voodoo economics to me.

[mac56]

75. Plus American businesses would stop investing and building.

Without the tax breaks, there would be far less incentive for businesses to build. Plus remember they'd be paying "fair tax" on all labor, supplies, etc. Foreign businesses? Is that what we want?

[Finder]

100. You are confusing state and local incentives with the fed. n/t

[Finder]

97. They would have MORE money in hand. n/t

[flaminbats]

148. how does a revenue neutral tax reduce the national debt?

I can see how a sales tax in addition to the current taxes would reduce deficit spending, but how would ditching all other taxes in place of a "revenue neutral" sales tax do this?

[magellan]

42. Fair Tax sucks

In the UK they pay 17.5% VAT on everything, gas and food included, folks. Do we REALLY want to go in that direction? Those making a healthy salary may not mind paying the extra on goods, but the majority of us stuck at the bottom of the income heap don't need the additional reaming when it's already hard enough to "put food on our families".

Fair Tax is a regressive tax.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

45. I Absolutely Might Support It, But I Have To Figure It Out More.

I was just reading up on it quite a bit. I am still not quite sure if my family would make out better in the end with the 30% fair tax as opposed to the current income tax. If we would, then I'd be for it. Have to calculate it out a little bit better though to make a decision.

As I was reading about it though it definitely seemed to be something supported in a non-partisan fashion so I'm not sure I understand those that are claiming it to be a republican ideal. That seems to be inaccurate from what I've researched so far. Also, the complaints about it being bad for the working class, because they spend a higher percentage of their total income as opposed to the rich, I see no relevance in that comparison. I really don't care what the percentages are, as that is meaningless in this equation. All the equation comes down to is two things: Would that working class family pay less at the end of it all than they do now? Would the rich end up possibly paying more in the end of it all than they do now? That's all that matters. I may have reason to believe the answer to both questions would be yes, which in that case I'd absolutely support it. But I'm still not convinced, however, and need to educate myself further on it.

[Finder]

55. Thank you for researching...

I too need to see more details before I am convinced but the arguments against it have been mostly kneejerk.

I think the current system sucks so I keep an open mind.

[mac56]

61. I assure you that my views on this are by no means "kneejerk"

thankyouverymuch.

You want fair taxation? Spend your energies on closing corporate tax loopholes, not on a system that will punish the very poor and the elderly.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

63. You Seem To Believe Strongly In This.

So to help enlighten me (seriously), why are you so convinced that the elderly and poor would pay more than currently? Can you give some examples or legitimate scenarios that contributed to your firm belief in this concept?

TIA

[mac56]

78. "examples or legitimate scenarios"?

Basically it's Intro to Econ 101. The "fair tax" is regressive: the poorer you are, the more you pay, proportional to your income. Plus it's unfair to retirees. People who have paid 1/4 or 1/3 of their income in taxes for 40 years will now have to pay an equally high tax on all the after tax income they've managed to put aside for their retirement. Every time retirees buy anything with their lifelong savings, they'll be double taxed.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

84. Seriously, Is That All You Opposers Have?

Does anybody have any REAL FUCKING DATA that can show why it would hurt the lower class so much? Sorry, but just simply 'saying so' doesn't quite cut it in this world. I said I'm on the fence on the issue and need more information, yet those opposing it seem incapable of providing it. So I will ask again, why does this fair tax, mathematically and realistically, hurt the lower class more than the current income tax does. I don't want to hear "because it just will", as that's just a damn cop-out. I'm looking for real information here, so I can make an INFORMED opinion on the matter. Any help as to why some are so strongly against it and so certain it will hurt the lower class will be much appreciated.

And no, I'm not lobbying for a fair tax. No, I'm not on board with it already. Fact is I have no goddamn idea which side I should support, but from what I had read so far it didn't seem so bad. Now, if that is wrong, and it is in fact a really bad thing for the poor, well then for gods sake actually post some factual shit that proves it, so that I can be swayed to the right side as well. But it ain't gonna happen based on rhetoric. Jesus.

[mac56]

90. Whoa! Simmer down there, cowpoke.

Deep breaths...calm...calm....

Have you considered switching to decaf?

Start with this.

http://www.mises.org/story/1975

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

101. So You Got Nuttin, Basically.

I'm calm just fine. It's the lack of intellectual debate that gets frustrating. But I'm still smiling my ass off as always.

Moving on to your provided link, it was almost purely hypothetically based, biased, and there was very little factual basis for anything. Probably really a bad source of information to base your strong opinion on. There were definitely some legitimate points raised that could have potential for negative effects from the tax, but overall almost everything in the article was assumptive and opinionated and there was almost nothing provided factually to show why the fair tax would hurt lower class americans. It was really just an article against a book. The concept of the fair tax itself was not disputed with actually facts or numbers at all, so the article itself, in the end, was really worthless to my research.

Thanks anyway though.

[mac56]

105. Fine.

Thanks for calming down.

We're not going to change each other's minds.

Others on this thread have pointed out the unfairness of the "fair tax" much more eloquently than I can.

But you'll believe what you want to believe anyway. "Believe the foma that make you happy and free" - Vonnegut.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

107. You Obviously Haven't Been Paying Attention

You say I'll believe what I want to believe anyway. Firstly, damn right. Secondly, I have stated flatly that I do not believe ANYTHING with this yet. I am in the information seeking stage. I will not and do not make opinions on things ignorantly, as I try to be as accurately educated on something as much as possible first. I am not, on this, currently. I'm trying to be. I'm genuinely seeking the wisdom and insight to the strong opposition. But I need facts. I haven't gotten them in response yet. But I will scan through the thread later and see if I missed any.

[mac56]

109. Good for you!

After you're done come back and find me so I can say, "I told you so."

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

112. Don't Hold Your Breath

If I find it to be true, the fact it lines up with your position would be completely coincidental in my opinion. Let's face it, it's 50/50 odds. But I'm only going to believe it to be true once an informed decision is made on accurate factual information and a process of reasoning, deduction and logic is incorporated. It's not going to be simply because I want to believe it, which I'm under the inclination to believe was your reasoning. (I may be wrong there, but I'm basing that opinion off what you've shown me so far.)

[mac56]

115. "Talking" ain't "doing".

Do us both a favor. Quit telling me what you're gonna do, and go do it.

But I sense you just want to have the last word. So go ahead, knock yourself out.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

124. I'm Sorry, Did I Need To Have My Opinion Decided By Tonight Or Something?

I must've missed the memo that declared there was a midnight deadline on deciding which side of this issue to be on.

You may have rushed in your decision making process, but I don't. Sorry.

Bye now.

[Idioteque]

77. It will be very good for the poor...probably a mixed bag for the elderly..

The FairTax will UNTAX the poor. Because of the prebate, taxes up to the poverty line will be covered. If they buy a used car, that will not be taxed because it is not new. That means they can take their full paycheck, with no taxes withheld, plus their prebate which assumes that they will be buying new items, and buy a used car tax free.

As for the elderly, as I said, it will be a mixed bag. They won't be taxed on their SS benefits. Also any money they have saved will be free from capital gains taxes. They will have to pay the FairTax on new goods and services but the pretax price of said goods will most likely be less because of the removal of hidden taxes. They will have the prebate to cover spending up to the poverty level.

[mac56]

81. You have a lot of faith in this "prebate".

Have you considered the cost of doing this? The potential for fraud? Not to mention the necessary level of intrusion into people's lives to make sure they're prebated "correctly"?

[Finder]

93. No different than the so-called rebates sent out a couple of years ago.

Only these will be monthly.

[mac56]

95. And we saw how well THEY worked.

:sarcasm:

[LSK]

58. its not about research, its about math

It comes down to this. You get to keep all your income. We are going to more than double the tax on everything you need to buy. Good luck. The rich will be laughing all the way to the bank.

Am I on DU or freerepublic right now?? :shrug:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

62. I Don't Know.

Do you frequent both? Try to only keep one of the windows open at a time.

As far as the math goes, you provided NOTHING as substance to the rhetoric. In fact, there is no math that can be done on your kneejerk statements at all. In order to do that math, I need to calculate what my expenditures would actually be, then calculate the taxes on them minus the rebate. Then I need to compare that to my current tax. If it is less, I would strongly consider supporting it. If it isn't by a significant enough margin, then I would most likely not support it. But just saying "it won't work you'll pay more even though I'm giving no numbers or assumptions or anything legitimate whatsoever I'm just gonna say you'll pay more because that's my opinion" doesn't do anything to serve this argument, with all due respect.

[LSK]

72. you would also have to factor in the loss of revenue from income taxes

And how much would have to be made up in this national sales tax to recover that revenue. Some studies say 23% and others say over 50%. And why does this revolve around you? I thought liberals tried to do things that was fair for all parties involved and the me-1st crowd was at freerepublic.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

80. Oh Enough With The Melodrama. If You Want To Debate, Some Facts Would Be

nice. But enough of the "wut is tis fwee wepublic blah blah" garbage isn't doing anyone any damn good.

Now as far as the rest of your post, I've seen 23% as the current accepted rate and is what I'm currently basing my opinion on. And no, it isn't just about me. I would of course like to ensure that it doesn't hurt the lower class either. Now it seems evident that you have no problem touting the concept that it will hurt them, yet you've provided NOTHING to me to bolster that claim. I am open to listening. So please, rather than the whining and freeper comparisons, how bout some actual scenarios, numbers or factual basis for your comments. Show me why you believe so strongly it will hurt the lower class.

Thanks.

[LSK]

83. see post 18

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

88. So You Are Saying You Have ZERO Legitimacy To Your Argument Then

That's rather sad. If you can't actually provide anything logical, intellectual, factual or reasonable as to why it is such a bad concept, and your only reasoning is in post 18, then you not only have no leg to stand on but no legitimacy either.

Here's reality check bub. Repubs, Democrats, Moderates, Independants all have many who support this. This is not at all a strictly republican ideal, from all I've read on it so far. So limiting this debate to such a narrow-minded inaccuracy does absolutely nothing to persuade anybody to your viewpoint. I hope someone else can do far better giving me something real and tangible to base an opinion on.

We're done here.

[LSK]

91. why is this not logical??

Call my argument a bunch of names and then leave without explaining why. Great.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

104. It's Actually Absurd

To forge your entire opinion and method of debate on a simply narrow minded and ignorant concept of 'cuz republikanz lyke it' is just plain sad.

Furthermore, I explained why within the damn post itself. I guess that went by you.

Please, I'm done with you on this. It is evident you have nothing informative to provide. That's all I'm after: something informative to base legitimate opinion off of. Not empty and ignorant rhetoric.

[LSK]

113. you do realize that all taxes would be replaced by this

According the whitehouse's website, the US Goverment took in $2.053 trillion in 2005.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/tables.html

So the fair tax would have to match that number. Taxes on all new purchases would have to match that figure. That includes (I'm assuming) food, clothes, TVs, cars, boats, school supplies, books, music, DVDs, etc. I dont believe that a 23% tax on all new items would cover that amount.

They talk about a prebate for the poor or not taxing food. That would just drive up the cost on everything else then or we would make it harder to meet the receipts that the current tax system provides.

There is another factor too. A $20,000 car now would cost $24,600 based on 23% tax rate. Now cars cost more. A family considering buying a $20,000 car might balk at buying a $24,600 car. Less spending would occur in the economy because everything costs more. Also, I dont know if used good would be taxed. If not, new product sales would plunder. That would not be good for the economy at all. In addition, if less people are buying new products, there is less tax generated because of new products not being sold )and therefore taxed).

[Finder]

118. Good for the environment as a bonus.lol n/t

[SoCalDem]

48. "Fair" Tax is anything BUT fair

By percentage of income to expenses, poor people will always lose in this scenario.. They ALREADY have to spend MOST of what they earn ...just to LIVE.. adding extras into their expenses will NOT help them..

and rich people will always have accountants to protect their assets..

Middlers will take it in the shorts because the home deduction is part of what will go bye-bye with the "FairTaxers'" plan..

[Auntie Bush]

49. It's not a fair tax! The rich will make out like bandits!

It's just like "blue skies" legislation. It should be called gray skies and fair tax should be unfair tax.

These multi millionaires and billionaires pay hundreds of thousands in income taxes and I don't think they will pay that much in taxes on goods that they buy. They will have full control of how much they pay in taxes.

But poor people and the middle class will still have to spend all or most of their income just to live and everything will sure seem expensive.

[hamerfan]

54. Against!

My main reason being, if we get rid of our present tax system businesses lose their deduction for giving workers health insurance. Without that incentive, no business would continue offering health insurance as a benefit to workers. And yes, even though our premiums go up every year, it's still a LOT better than having no insurance.
dumpbush

[rman]

69. As though they don't already

They'll make out even bigger and they'll be bigger bandits because of it.

[rman]

64. If only because of the Orwellian name.

There's nothing "Fair" about it.

[DemInDistress]

66. If you earn more...YOU PAY MORE.. that's the America I

grew up in. What is so difficult to understand about that? I'd be delighted to pay more if I even had a job!!! let alone earning a million dollars a year, or even 100k.
Seems the tax burden has shifted more to the poor/middle class folks.

[breakfastofchampions]

76. The rich already do pay more

10 % of a million is a lot more than 10% of 50K

[mac56]

106. But look what they have left over!

90% left over from a million is a lot more than 90% left over from 50K.

[Finder]

114. so jealousy should play a factor?

Regardless of any reforms agreed upon, the mega-rich will stay mega-rich. Wishing them into poverty or whatever some wish upon those they label "the rich" does not change the fact most lower income and middle class wage earners can barely survive under the current system.

[mac56]

116. "Jealousy"?! That's your best shot here?!

I'm talking about ability to make ends meet after one's tax burden is met.

"Jealousy"?! Sheesh.

[lastliberalintexas]

110. Not in relation to their *ability* to pay

Furthermore, none of the proposals that I have ever seen on flat taxes or sales taxes ever takes into account wealth accumulation or unearned income. Meaning that the wealthy of this country would have a ton of money and assets which are wholly exempted from taxation at the federal level. Not exactly a very progressive idea, is it?

[breakfastofchampions]

117. why shouldn't people be allowed to keep money they earn? nt

[mac56]

122. why shouldn't people have to pay their share of the system cost?

Especially if the system's allowed them to make a lot of money?

[breakfastofchampions]

127. Everybody pays their share

the rich don't owe more to anyone else by virtue of being rich.

[mac56]

130. Go look up the word "loophole".

Then tell me again how everybody pays their share.

[breakfastofchampions]

the rich pay the majority of taxes nt

[mac56]

136. Not as a percentage of their wealth.

nm

[breakfastofchampions]

139. my share of the cost ...

my share of the cost does not depend on how much I have, but rather how much I consume, for that is the true "burden" on society.

You keep on changing definitions. Am I supposed to pay my share or not. Does the government work for me or the other way around? Pick one and stick with it.

[mac56]

141. I haven't changed definitions even once.

Yes, you're supposed to pay your share like everyone else.

The rest of your post makes no sense.

[breakfastofchampions]

144. that wasn't clear, let me explain

yes a person has to pay their share to keep this country running.

But how much money a person has does not affect how the impact that person has on society.

Say I make 20$/hr. I do my thing. I'm represented by politicians, I'm protected by police, I've been educated by schools. I drive to work on roads.

Now say I make 40$/hr, doing the exact same thing, but due to some phenomenon that work suddenly becomes more highly valued. Nothing has changed except the number on the check coming in every two weeks. Same politicians, police, schools, roads.

Tell me what I did to deserve having a bigger chunk taken out of my paycheck?


Edit: grammar

[lastliberalintexas]

132. Then why do their proposals always exclude unearned income?

And why do they want to eliminate inheritance taxes? If we all pay and we should all pay equally in your book, why are some forms of income more equal than others when it comes to being subject to taxation?

[LSK]

126. because Republicans like to spend money

[breakfastofchampions]

128. everybody does

this isn't a partisan issue

[LSK]

133. when taxes are so high to pay for republican spending

It is a partisan issue. The reason for taxes is to pay for the budget. Well considering our national debt is over $8 trillion, I would say we have yet to pay for Reagans star wars program.

[lastliberalintexas]

129. Well, since one form of income that I mentioned is UNearned

income, your question seems rather ironic.

And also nothing more than a right wing talking point.

[breakfastofchampions]

131. what is unearned income?

there is no such thing

edit: i think

[mac56]

134. Inheritance.

For one.

[lastliberalintexas]

135. You might want to read a little bit about economics before

you wade into these discussions if you don't even understand the difference between earned and unearned income.

In simple terms, the wages that Joe Shmoe busts his ass laying bricks in the hot sun for are eanred income. The interest that Paris Hilton earns off her millions of inherited dollars sitting in mutual funds is unearned income.

So, can you see why people like Forbes always seem to exclude unearned income from these proposals? yeah, I think you might see that now.

[breakfastofchampions]

138. as unfair as Paris Hilton's situation seems

her dad and her grandparents etc. worked hard so that she could live the life of a socialite. Yes, she's lucky but her dad thinks she is entitled to his money, so she is. If her dad gave me that money, then I would entitled to it as well, but he hasn't so I'm not.

[lastliberalintexas]

143. Should it be exempt from taxation while Joe Shmoe's wages are not?

That is the issue, not whether people are entitled to transfer their wealth to others. The question is, should that transfer of unearned income be free and clear of taxes? If you answer yes, why? Why should that income be untaxed while wages and salaries are?

And don't you think that even a brief reading of economic theory might be in order before you make up your mind on these issues? :shrug:

[Finder]

146. It will be taxed when spent under the FairTax. n/t

[lastliberalintexas]

147. When, or if?

First of all, people with a ton of disposable income do not have to spend it all to survive and can make their purchases with discretion. People with very little discretionary income can not, and in most to many cases must spend everything to survive, thus never accumulating wealth. Second, the "Fair" Tax proposal does not make any concession for wealth accumulation that certain income levels would be able to achieve, and thus there would be substantial monies wholly exempt from taxation while working class shmoes get screwed. You think that the distribution of income is bad in our country right now, just see what it would look like under such a plan.

Better yet, read a little bit of history and look at the so called Gilded Age in America. That is essentially what you are advocating we return to.


And on a related note, posters who are criticizing people for thinking about leaving the US should read this thread. When even supposed progressives are advocating for such regressive tax structures to be implemented, I'd say our problems go well beyond Bush and just might be irreversible.

[ulysses]

68. nope. n/t

[Buns_of_Fire]

70. I'd have to wait and see what's actually proposed

If it winds up being Grover's Wet Dream -- a FLAT tax -- then absolutely, positively not.

If it winds up as has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread -- a 23% or so National Sales Tax (on NEW items only) with monthly prebates to all -- I'd be willing to listen.

The devil, as always, will be in the details.

[LSK]

74. didnt Forbes base his 1996 Presidential run on this??

Hmmm, I wonder why...

[Idioteque]

79. No...Forbes opposes the FairTax. He wants a FLAT tax...

...which would be very unfair on the poor and middle class.

[LSK]

82. oh that was relating to a flat income tax wasnt it?

[lastliberalintexas]

85. A reform of the progressive income tax would be better

Of course, not by the people in charge right now.

A little economics lesson for folks- a sales tax interferes with a market economy more than any other form of taxation, an income tax interferes the least. Sales taxes tend to dampen sales of non-essentials and are a much more volatile source of revenue for governments than income taxes are. To a certain extent anyway, people can voluntarily curb their expenditures, but people do not tend to voluntarily curb their incomes.

A better solution is to increase the top 2 marginal rates, raise the amount of income to which SS taxes apply so that higher incomes are not exempt, dramatically increase taxes on UNearned income, increase the child, earned income and other credits available under the current system, and to raise the floor for which income levels are even subject to taxation so that lower income workers pay nothing. Shift the tax burden back to where it should be- to those who are best able to pay it and off the backs of the poor, working and middle classes.

Don't buy into the right wing propaganda.

[Zynx]

98. I understand that people with incomes of less than $30,000 would not pay

on a net basis because they would get some manner of rebate. I don't remember exactly how that works. However, such a system would not raise the money looked for on a net basis if people below 30,000 did not pay tax on a net basis. Rates would have to be massive. I favor making a tax system based on the payroll tax that would go something like the following:

There would be only two major taxes:
1. Payroll Tax
2. Financial Transaction Tax

The payroll tax, since it is used for general government funds anyway, would now be the only tax that taxes income. It would work just like the regular payroll tax except there would be lower rates for people below $40,000 and higher for successive income groups ranging from 3-4% on the low end to 15-18% on the high end. There would be no escape from this as it would come straight out of your paycheck. Corporations would have to match it dollar for dollar with no caps. It would work like this for an example:

A person who earns $120,000 would pay 4% on the first $40,000, 7% on the next $40,000, 9% on the next $40,000. In total, between individuals and corporations, assuming an average rate of approximately 10-12%, you would bring in $1.8 trillion to $2 trillion. This would be automatic and predictable. Everyone would get a statement at the end of the year to make sure it is correct. This also has another benefit, since there is corporate matching on every dollar, the CEOs who get paid $50 million would have to have their corporations cough up an additional $7.5 million or so. We could create an ultra high rate(35% or maybe even 50% for over $5 million) to further discourage the gross overpayment of CEOs.

The financial transaction tax is simple. Everytime you sell a financial asset, regardless of a gain or loss, the financial institution will automatically send a fixed percent, likely only 1% or so, to the government. Given the average volume of financial transactions in a year, this would raise approximately $200 billion. Rates would vary by asset class as in higher for homes and stocks and lower for bonds since bonds have such little total return and the credit markets need to be more fluid than other markets. This also applies to ALL interest and dividend payments as soon as the checks are cut. A fixed percent of the payment would come straight off the top. This would further raise revenues in a fair and equitable way.

[Finder]

108. You have some good ideas here.

You should expand on it and share with our policymakers.

[Zynx]

123. Thank you.

I can't take all the credit for it since others have proposed ideas that have spurred my thoughts on it. The idea is to create the most efficient, fairest, and most equitable tax system that we can that also raises the most revenue possible with as little difficulty as possible. This tax system, I believe, would be the envy of the civilized world.

What's more is that by the financial transaction tax being simplified, I believe it would encourage long term investment and savings by taxing dividends and interest very lightly compared to now. Long term investment is the friend of the entire nation as it spurs long term increases in our economic growth rate.

[TahitiNut]

99. Unless and until a 'sales tax' applies to the sale or exchange of stock...

... in publicly 'owned' corporations it's absolutely nothing more than a scam by the wealthy to put a greater and greater tax burden on people's LIVES while profiteers and hoarders accumulate greater wealth.

[Zynx]

102. There is the capital gains tax.

[breakfastofchampions]

140. i think the government would only tax new goods

so after the stock has been sold once, it is technically "used".

[B Calm]

120. We pretty much have a flat tax now, and as you can see it's not

working!

[lumberjack_jeff]

142. The fair tax is a huge lie

It won't bring in enough money unless the rate becomes something like 70-100%.

Obviously the chamber of commerce won't put up with that, so be prepared for the "prebate" to become a fantasy, and the loophole for used goods to snap shut.