The case for the Fair Tax; the time is NOW

[Dantès]

Can you write in complete sentences?

"NOPE" - What????

Are you offering the idiotic claim that the country "ran better" BECAUSE Income Taxes on the wealth were much higher? If so, your mind is not worth trying to educate.

There is nothing idiotic about that claim, I think the evidence is pretty clear for those who want to look at it that the country did run better. It was during the period when the highest tax rates were 91 percent that we instituted the national project that created the interstate highway system and created many other national infrastucture projects. These projects created working class jobs that gave people a sense of purpose and allowed them to buy homes, raise families and prosper. At the same time the gap between the rich and the poor was much less and the plant owners and managers only made about 24 times what their average worker made. That different has increased by a 1000%. And what this means is that while wages for managers and owners has soared the wages for the average worker have stagnated and the amount of disposable income that workers have today is less than it was when the gap was much less. So if you are taking the side of the average person who probably mostly struggles and probably does their own taxes then for you things would not be better but it you are working for the person who is making considerable more and looking for every "legal" tax deduction he or she can find to keep as much of their overpaid wealth as they can then you as a tax preparer are probably going to side with them. Yes things have improved for you as a result of their good fortune but no so much for their workers and others whose wages have stagnated so you can prepare taxes for the super rich.

In addition there is something else that concentrating on your own self interest misses and that is that those tax loopholes for corporations and individual that you are quick to defend and cite as "legal" came about as a result of "money power." What do I mean by Money Power. I mean simply the ability and the wherewithal to influence the legislative process in order to get those "legal" loopholes written into the tax code so that people like you can make your 70,000 to 100,000 a year or more making sure that all those legal means are utilized so that people like Mitt Romney can pay the least amount of taxes they can because the millions he gives in charity to the Mormon Church is much better spent than if that money was bundled with the tax money of many other millionaires like himself and it was used to begin fixing some of the 83,000 bridges that need immediate repair in this country. This would give immediate jobs to many of those who are currently still out of work from the recession and it will make it much easier to get that money moving through the economy and creating more jobs.

The idea that money is only worthwhile if it is spent on what I want to spend it on is short sighted and ridiculous. In fact this country is as great as it is because we have in the past spent the taxpayers dollars to create a great country; the idea that taxpayers should not have to pay taxes is ridiculous or that they should be able to use their money power to create even more loopholes for them to pay even less every year is a symptom of a much larger problem and one of the reason that we currently find ourself in the fiscal mess we face. If more people paid more in taxes and the money power was decreased so that people at the top paid more in taxes we would all be better off for it. Taking that money and stashing it overseas or otherwise hiding it means that whatever work it does, it does offshore and that is not good for the America economy and employs no American workers and ultimately that is why we should be Americans to make sure that the country works better not that each individual millionaire gets to jeep as much of his or her money as they can so they can spend it in other places and we loose the benefit of the money if it had been spent here. In short, you bet the country works better when the rich pay more in taxes. It might not be so good for you, but it would be better for the entire country and where is your sense of patriotism?

 

[YANKEE]

Some more research from the Experts on the Fair Tax:

The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) 1997 Tax Modeling Project and 1997 Tax Symposium has played a pivotal role for many of these analyses.38 In response to Congressional requests to incorporate dynamic analyses into JCT revenue forecasts, the JCT held a series of meetings to examine the methodologies and feasibility of incorporating a dynamic macroeconomic model into the revenue estimating procedures for alternative tax reforms – including consumption-based taxes. These meetings culminated in a symposium where the participating academics each presented the results of their individual models. All of the models projected that a switch to a consumption tax will ultimately lead to higher economic growth. Higher economic growth:

“…arises because all of the models are based on a set of commonly held assumptions about economic behavior…These properties include the following basic assumptions:
• reducing the cost of capital through less taxation of capital provides an incentive for additional investment;
• reducing the marginal tax rate on labor provides an incentive for increased labor effort;
• increasing the returns to labor through capital deepening can provide an incentive for more labor; and,
• reducing distortions in investment decisions by eliminating differential taxation of different types of capital promot[ing] a more efficient allocation of resources.”39


Koenig and Huffman (1998) echo these findings as do Engen, Gravelle, and Smetters (1997).40 Although the Koenig and Huffman model is designed to illustrate direction of change, not magnitude, they find that output, consumption, wages, stock prices, and the total capital stock will rise in the long run due to the adoption of a consumption-based tax. Engen, Gravelle, and Smetters use two different types of models (reduced form growth models and inter-temporal general equilibrium models) to examine the impact of transition to a consumption-based tax system. Again, in all of the models the tax reform has a positive impact on output, savings, consumption, and the growth in the capital stock in the long run. Further studies by Dale Jorgenson (1995), Alan Auerbach (1996), Michael Boskin (1995), and Laurence Kotlikoff (1993) have all shown positive impacts on economic growth if the current tax code is replaced by a single-rate tax on consumption ranging from a total increase in economic output of 5.7 to 17 percent.41 In a 1984 study, Arthur Laffer found that replacing the current income tax system with a flat tax would likely increase economic growth by between 8 and 15 percent in the long run.42

.........

The FairTax induces an immediate increase in labor supply, followed by significant growth in the capital stock. These impacts raise current economic growth, but do not change the long-run potential growth rate of the economy. Consistent with the neoclassical growth models, economic output increases in response to the higher labor and capital which, after spiking growth to 5.5 and 5.8 percent in the initial years following implementation, begin to approach the steady-state growth rate of 3.0 percent by year ten. By year ten, total economic output is 11.3 percent above what it would have been without implementation of the FairTax proposal.

To the extent that higher productivity growth is linked to higher capital accumulation (a likely scenario), the growth effects will be even greater. For instance, if the larger accumulation of capital induces a one-quarter percent increase in productivity growth, total economic output in year ten would be 19.4 percent greater than the baseline scenario as opposed to 11.3 percent.

http://www.fairtaxblog.com/research/

YANKEE: This, like most economic modeling, is an exercise in mental masturbation. All economics "research"produces nothing but THEORIES, not guarantee-able results.
A wise economist said in a WSJ editorial just a few years ago that they can predict NOTHING because there are far too many variables to predict any eventual outcome.

 

[Yoda]

NOT EXACTLY. Corporations WOULD NOT pay FT.

Mitt Romney paid 18% of his TAXABLE INCOME - only DEMS and unsophisticated people would ever calculate a tax rate by dividing the tax paid by GROSS Income. 18% reflects the fact that most of his income was cap gains and dividends taxed at 15% - perfectly legal and proper.
Mitt paid $3MM in tax that year and he paid another $4MM in charitable contributions and MA income Taxes. Is that not enough for you, Comrade?

Only the rich get those tax deductions, the working people that make their wealth by making their goods or buying their chinese shit do not.
The fair tax should be graduated so the pigs at the trough pay their fair share and everyone on the way down with ZERO DEDUCTIONS FOR ALL, but this straight across the board tax is no fair tax its another welfare program for the rich at the expense of everyone else.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Only the rich get those tax deductions, the working people that make their wealth by making their goods or buying their chinese shit do not.
The fair tax should be graduated so the pigs at the trough pay their fair share and everyone on the way down with ZERO DEDUCTIONS FOR ALL, but this straight across the board tax is no fair tax its another welfare program for the rich at the expense of everyone else.

When you say everyone should pay their "fair share", what exactly do you mean?

 

[The Dude]

Only the rich get those tax deductions, the working people that make their wealth by making their goods or buying their chinese shit do not.
The fair tax should be graduated so the pigs at the trough pay their fair share and everyone on the way down with ZERO DEDUCTIONS FOR ALL, but this straight across the board tax is no fair tax its another welfare program for the rich at the expense of everyone else.

Working people climb the economic ladder in part by building deductions! Fact

 

[Rune]

the FT's Karl Marx uses steroids. See my new post to see exactly how the FT makes sure that the poor receive a new large WELFARE check.

There is no version of the flat tax that doesn't tranfer more of the burden on to the poor while allowing the rich to pay less.
Despite your verbosity, You shoot your own argument down by stating Romney should pay more the 12%
then that the tax rate should be 10%.

You are incorrect, you are lying, you don't know what you are talkimg about , you are likely an asshole, go fuck yourself.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

There is no version of the flat tax that doesn't tranfer more of the burden on to the poor while allowing the rich to pay less.
Despite your verbosity, You shoot your own argument down by stating Romney should pay more the 12%
then that the tax rate should be 10%.

You are incorrect, you are lying, you don't know what you are talkimg about , you are likely an asshole, go fuck yourself.

That's not entirely correct. The poor are well...poor and you can't squeeze blood from a turnip. What regressive taxes like the oxymoronic named "Fair Tax" do is shift the burden of taxation to the middle and professional classes.

Our current system is essentially a pretty fair system. What we really need to do to make it more fair is make investment income taxable at the same rate as personal income. That way an ubber wealthy person like Mitt Romney or Warren Buffet end up paying effective tax rates of closer to 40% instead of 20%.

The low tax rates for investment income are the primary source of unfairness in our current system. If you look at a graph of taxes paid vs percent of national income you'll see that tax payments are fairly apportioned until you hit the top 1% who make most of their income from investments. Then it flat lines. Which is patently unfair. Why should a professional or a business person who busts their buts to earn a $1 million be taxed at 38% while an investor who passively earns $1 million dollars be taxed at 18%?

 

[Dantès]

That's not entirely correct. The poor are well...poor and you can't squeeze blood from a turnip. What regressive taxes like the oxymoronic named "Fair Tax" do is shift the burden of taxation to the middle and professional classes.

Our current system is essentially a pretty fair system. What we really need to do to make it more fair is make investment income taxable at the same rate as personal income. That way an ubber wealthy person like Mitt Romney or Warren Buffet end up paying effective tax rates of closer to 40% instead of 20%.

The low tax rates for investment income are the primary source of unfairness in our current system. If you look at a graph of taxes paid vs percent of national income you'll see that tax payments are fairly apportioned until you hit the top 1% who make most of their income from investments. Then it flat lines. Which is patently unfair. Why should a professional or a business person who busts their buts to earn a $1 million be taxed at 38% while an investor who passively earns $1 million dollars be taxed at 18%?

Because the "professional or a business person who busts their buts to earn a $1 million" hasn't gotten the tax code written or rewritten to save them millions in tax payments, while the person passively collecting their money has plenty of time to get together with their "friends" and hire a lobbyist to get the code changed to benefit themselves and their friends. And when multi-millionaires like Romney make that kind of an investment (which is how they see such payments) they expect to be able to reap the benefits or some years into the future. And that is why changing the code back is going to be so difficult. It could take years to do it. And that would be the case if there were more Senators than just Bernie Sanders who might be interested in doing this. The Senate is composed of the class of people that they represent and they represent the wealthy. John McCain is a good example, a man who doesn't know how many houses he and his wife own and has plenty of other people's money to gamble with whenever he gets the urge. He is there to make sure that the investor class is taken care, and so are most of the others. Here's how John Nichols and Robert W. McChesney put it in Dollarocracy: How the Money-and-Media Election Complex is Destroying America (2013), "the great bulk of Americans unequivocally have no influence over the decisions made by Congress or executive agencies today, at least when they run up against the interests of either a powerful corporate lobby or wealthy people as a class. When the opinions of the poor, working class, and middle class diverge from those of the very well off, the opinions of the poor, the working class, and the middle class cease to have any influence." They go on to talk about what this means, but the fact is that there are few if any champions of the "the poor, the working class and the middle class in the US Senate where change is glacial.

 

[evince]

Dantes you seem pretty on top of many things.

why would you want to associate yourself with the tea party?

 

[The Dude]

That's not entirely correct. The poor are well...poor and you can't squeeze blood from a turnip. What regressive taxes like the oxymoronic named "Fair Tax" do is shift the burden of taxation to the middle and professional classes.

Our current system is essentially a pretty fair system. What we really need to do to make it more fair is make investment income taxable at the same rate as personal income. That way an ubber wealthy person like Mitt Romney or Warren Buffet end up paying effective tax rates of closer to 40% instead of 20%.

The low tax rates for investment income are the primary source of unfairness in our current system. If you look at a graph of taxes paid vs percent of national income you'll see that tax payments are fairly apportioned until you hit the top 1% who make most of their income from investments. Then it flat lines. Which is patently unfair. Why should a professional or a business person who busts their buts to earn a $1 million be taxed at 38% while an investor who passively earns $1 million dollars be taxed at 18%?[/QUOTE
Die you gravy sucking pig

 

[Mott the Hoople]

That's not entirely correct. The poor are well...poor and you can't squeeze blood from a turnip. What regressive taxes like the oxymoronic named "Fair Tax" do is shift the burden of taxation to the middle and professional classes.

Our current system is essentially a pretty fair system. What we really need to do to make it more fair is make investment income taxable at the same rate as personal income. That way an ubber wealthy person like Mitt Romney or Warren Buffet end up paying effective tax rates of closer to 40% instead of 20%.

The low tax rates for investment income are the primary source of unfairness in our current system. If you look at a graph of taxes paid vs percent of national income you'll see that tax payments are fairly apportioned until you hit the top 1% who make most of their income from investments. Then it flat lines. Which is patently unfair. Why should a professional or a business person who busts their buts to earn a $1 million be taxed at 38% while an investor who passively earns $1 million dollars be taxed at 18%?[/QUOTE
Die you gravy sucking pig

LOL You're only saying that cause you're living off investment income you lazy slacker!

 

[The Dude]

LOL You're only saying that cause you're living off investment income you lazy slacker!

I prefer stoner millionaire
Lifestyle of the marley's and the bogarts

 

[evince]

YANKEE: This, like most economic modeling, is an exercise in mental masturbation. All economics "research"produces nothing but THEORIES, not guarantee-able results.
A wise economist said in a WSJ editorial just a few years ago that they can predict NOTHING because there are far too many variables to predict any eventual outcome.

ahhhh the Austrian short bus school of economics rears its head

 

[Kamala Trump]

The fair tax is not fair at all. It focuses the tax burden on the lower and middle classes, because it's a consumption tax. The uber wealthy's income outpaces any amount they could possible spend many times over, where as the middle and lowers basically are living paycheck to paycheck, spending everything they make just to get by.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

ahhhh the Austrian short bus school of economics rears its head

Should there be people who pay ZERO federal income tax? I say no. What say you?

 

[Granule]

As a former flat tax disciple, I have been convinced that the Fair Tax will have a much better result in that unlike the flat tax, this tax will hit the underground economy as well.

I read a great book I highly recommend called The Fair Tax Solution by Ken Hoagland. It is an easy read and short book that makes the compelling case for a consumption tax.

Both taxes do away with the current abomination called the Tax Code which is over 70,000 pages of lobbyist favored politically motivated power grabbing gobbledygook.

If you want to eliminate favoritism, cronyism, lobbyists and corruption, then you will be for this tax.

With this tax, there are no forms to fill out and the $300 billion spent annually in compliance with the tax code would be re-directed to more productive uses that would create more jobs.

In addition, there would be HUGE cost savings for the Federal Government. We would not need the massive bureaucracy called the IRS and Congressional staffs whose primary job is creating tax laws and loopholes would be significantly reduced.

My previous issues with a consumption tax were its impact on low income earners. But Hoagland addresses this through a pre-bate program that is calculated based on an annually adjusted federal poverty level income basis.

The Fair Tax rate is 23% charged on all consumption. But before you say yikes, imagine that your take home pay will significantly increase in that there will no longer be a FICA tax or income taxes taken from your paycheck. Your decisions will affect how much tax you pay by what you decide to buy.

The best part is that there are hundreds of millions of dollars in an untouchable underground economy that do not pay their fair share who now would be paying every time they made a purchase. Millions of foreign visitors would also be contributing with their purchases. And best of all, hundreds of billions of dollars now removed from the economy in code compliance and enforcement would be released to more productive uses.

Read the book, become informed and then join me in pressuring your elected officials to create this Fair Tax and eliminate the abomination called the Tax Code and the IRS.

I'd be for dumping all Social Security too.

 

[The Dude]

Only the rich get those tax deductions, the working people that make their wealth by making their goods or buying their chinese shit do not.
The fair tax should be graduated so the pigs at the trough pay their fair share and everyone on the way down with ZERO DEDUCTIONS FOR ALL, but this straight across the board tax is no fair tax its another welfare program for the rich at the expense of everyone else.

That's 100 percent factually ignorant

 

[Kamala Trump]

Should there be people who pay ZERO federal income tax? I say no. What say you?

Yes.

 

[Yoda]

When you say everyone should pay their "fair share", what exactly do you mean?

The rich in this country have gotten fabulously richer in the last 15 yrs off the backs of all other americans, by taking their jobs, outsourcing for more profit, the top 10 corporations in america paid not one cent in federal taxs in 2012. GE not only paid zero taxs on over 15 billion in profits it recieved a 300 million tax credit.
Four hundred Americans [400] have almost 40% of all the wealth. Just six americans [6] The waltons have almost 30% and somehow the far right expects Social Security to be cut medicare, medicaid and they vote to continue Subsidies in the BILLIONS that have been going on for more than 2 decades to Big Oil, Big Corporate Farms and Big Pharmacueticals, along with that they want more TAX CUTS for those that pay nothing to mere peanuts already and less regulation so they have even more latitude to screw the rest of americans even more.
Heres the way I see it simplified, The super rich do not need my help, middleclass and on down need my help.
A fair tax to me is a graduated tax where the rich pay more because they are reaping most of all the benefits. Its just common sense to me.

 

[The Dude]

Millions of middle class benefit from the tax code!
You want to crush teabaggers even more.
Wake up to economic reality