Is the fair tax act a good idea?

KingRaw!

KingRaw!

I dare you to stop us GL
By my enemy WinterBorn!!!


"The Fair tax Act would do away with the IRS completely and shift us to a consumption tax.


The price of every new it or service sold in the USA would include a 23% sales tax. Numerous studies have shown that the average item and/or service sold now has an imbedded tax of 22%. This comes from all the payroll taxes, business taxes, coporate taxes, ect ect. All companies roll these taxes into the price of their products as a cost of doing business. We pay those, and they average 22% of the cost of everything.


Also in the Fair Tax Act is a rebate to be paid to every person, that amounts to 23% of whatever the poverty level is. In other words, lets say the poverty level is $20k. Anything below that is poverty. Every person in the USA would get a rebate for 23% of $20k. So no person would pay the tax on the basic necessities. But everyone would pay the same percentage on all purchases above that.


All savings and investments would be tax free.


Your paycheck would no longer be taxed. So if you make $10 an hour and work 40 hours, you actual paycheck would be $400.


This would do away with all the loopholes, tax shelters ect. It would also mean that illegal immigrants would pay their share of taxes, as would drug dealers, hookers, people who work for cash under the table, ect ect.

Also, politicians would be FAR less willing to raise taxes, because they couldn't raise taxes on just a particular group. Any tax increase would be across the board. Everyone would pay the same percentage of their income in taxes.

Look it up online, it would be the greatest shift of power to the people since the Declaration of Independence."
 
I am opposed to all of the so-called "fair tax" -- that is, flat tax -- proposals I've ever read. They're all premised by the assumption that everyone paying the same percentage of their income as tax is somehow fair. I don't accept that definition of fairness.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
They're all premised by the assumption that everyone paying the same percentage of their income as tax is somehow fair. I don't accept that definition of fairness.
Click to expand...

Yes, most economic leftists would agree with you. However I feel that's a rather illogical view.

You can say what you like about our responsiblities to society and so forth, but in the end arguing that it's not "fair" for every citizen of the same country to be taxed the same rate is mathematically and rationally stupid.

It would be more honest for you to say that you don't think fairness should be our goal in setting tax policy.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
I am opposed to all of the so-called "fair tax" -- that is, flat tax -- proposals I've ever read. They're all premised by the assumption that everyone paying the same percentage of their income as tax is somehow fair. I don't accept that definition of fairness.
Click to expand...

The fair tax isn't a flat tax. How many times does this need to be explained.
 
Young Libertarian said:
Yes, most economic leftists would agree with you. However I feel that's a rather illogical view.

You can say what you like about our responsiblities to society and so forth, but in the end arguing that it's not "fair" for every citizen of the same country to be taxed the same rate is mathematically and rationally stupid.

It would be more honest for you to say that you don't think fairness should be our goal in setting tax policy.
Click to expand...

A poor person paying 10% of their income is a lot harsher than a billionare paying 10% of their income. That's just common sense.
 
Watermark said:
A poor person paying 10% of their income is a lot harsher than a billionare paying 10% of their income. That's just common sense.
Click to expand...

It may well be common sense and it may well be the best thing to do, but both of those things have nothing to do with my point.

Ornot said that the idea of everyone in the same country paying the same tax rate on their incomes wasn't fair in principle.

I think that's either stupid or dishonest, and that he should just say what he actually believes: that fairness shouldn't be the guiding principle in setting tax brackets and rates.
 
Young Libertarian said:
It may well be common sense and it may well be the best thing to do, but both of those things have nothing to do with my point.

Ornot said that the idea of everyone in the same country paying the same tax rate on their incomes wasn't fair in principle.

I think that's either stupid or dishonest, and that he should just say what he actually believes: that fairness shouldn't be the guiding principle in setting tax brackets and rates.
Click to expand...

Why would everyone being taxed at the same rate be fairer, whenever it hits the poorer person harder? Does this statement make sense to you?

It is fair in one sense, that technically everyone pays the same percentage, it's not in the most practical one, that of how much burden is actually beared.
 
Young Libertarian said:
Yes, most economic leftists would agree with you. However I feel that's a rather illogical view.

You can say what you like about our responsiblities to society and so forth, but in the end arguing that it's not "fair" for every citizen of the same country to be taxed the same rate is mathematically and rationally stupid.

It would be more honest for you to say that you don't think fairness should be our goal in setting tax policy.
Click to expand...
Typical fuzzy libertarian thinking. You don't, I believe, recognize the extent of your own assumptions.

It would be more honest for you to admit that "fairness" is a term all too apt to abuse. Everyone thinks they know what it means yet it has no precise definition. Still less a universal one.

For me, and for most other leftists, the critical issue is not how much one pays in taxes but rather how much one is left with after paying taxes. it's this amount of money -- one's after-tax income -- which will determine how well one is able to live.

Let's suppose for the sake of argument that everyone in America will pay fifteen percent of their gross income in tax. In this scenario, a person making $40,000 per year would be left with $34,000 after taxes, while a person making $400,000 would be left with $340,000.

The burden of the "fair" tax would fall far more heavily on the low income taxpayer than on the high income taxpayer. Living on $340,000 per year is vastly easier than living on $34,000 per year is. More to the point, living on $200,000 per year is vastly easier than living on $34,000.

And it's the burden of the tax -- the degree to which taxation causes pain and difficulty -- by which we should judge "fairness." No other standard is humane.

The idea that everyone might be taxed the same percentage of their income is attractive on the surface. It seems a simple way to ensure "fairness" . . . but appearances can be deceiving. Especially if one is shallow and lazy. ;)
 
Then say that you are trying to evenly distribute the burden of the nation's expenses, rather than claiming that it is unfair that every citizen be treated the same way by the government.

It is a principle used in with great effectiveness in the American justice system: How rich or how poor you are doesn't increase or restrict the rights provided to you by the law. Everyone is treated the same by the eyes of the government courts; billionaires and debtors alike. Why should a special exception exist in the realm of taxation?

How rich or how poor you are shouldn't affect the percentage of your income you pay in taxes any more than it affects your rights in the courtroom, at least in the opinion of many including myself.
 
Young Libertarian said:
Then say that you are trying to evenly distribute the burden of the nation's expenses, rather than claiming that it is unfair that every citizen be treated the same way by the government.

It is a principle used in with great effectiveness in the American justice system: How rich or how poor you are doesn't increase or restrict the rights provided to you by the law. Everyone is treated the same by the eyes of the government courts; billionaires and debtors alike. Why should a special exception exist in the realm of taxation?

How rich or how poor you are shouldn't affect the percentage of your income you pay in taxes any more than it affects your rights in the courtroom, at least in the opinion of many including myself.
Click to expand...

How dense are you man?
 
In general I'm for government staying out of everyone's business, collecting what taxes are necessary to do the things it should do. With that said, taxes are a necessary evil. I don't believe the 'fair tax' or 'flat tax' are the answer, at least not without a lot of tweaking. Sales tax in general is regressive. For those towards the lower ends, when the entire income is used for basic necessities, 100% of what they spend would be taxed-no exceptions.

For those that can save/invest, not so.

In actuality, the idea of a graduated income tax if implemented at both the state and federal level, getting rid of all sales taxes, utility taxes, excise taxes, usary taxes, gasoline taxes, etc., would probably make us all more comfortable.
 
I fear stopping a black market from forming would require fastidious traceback ability on all retail sales, which would require chipping. Plus, the super rich could neve spend what they make, these chunks of wealth are just a tax free control over society.
 
Last edited:
Well if something has Fair in it's name and it comes from the govt. Just get out the vaseline and bend over.
 
Its about keeping the country a place worth living in. Paying to keep things fair is not evil. Taxes are nothing more than a tool to achieve what we want our country to look like. I like police, fire departments, schools ,roads and bridges and dont consider it evil to pony up my share of achieving this.
 
Desh said:
Its about keeping the country a place worth living in. Paying to keep things fair is not evil. Taxes are nothing more than a tool to achieve what we want our country to look like. I like police, fire departments, schools ,roads and bridges and dont consider it evil to pony up my share of achieving this.
Click to expand...

We sort of have schools, roads, and police in Mississippi.

NO NEW TAXES!
 
People need to realize our government would NEVER just have a consumption tax. The only potential would be to have duel tax.. consumption and income.. and you know 10-20years down road we would be back at today’s income tax levels but also have federal sales tax.
 
We also have had the bridges in bad shape and states selling their roads to other countries.

The job aint done and our schools are suffering from shit designed to make them worse.

The job is far from done.
 
The "Fair Tax" is a terrible idea and basically a fraud.

First, the actual rate the "Fair Tax" hucksters propose is 30%, not 23%. Take a $100 purchase. Under the "Fair Tax" scheme you would pay $130.00 for it. Most normal people call this a 30% tax rate, but not the "Fair Tax" hucksters. They call this a 23% tax rate because 23% of $130 = $30. Yeah, it's convoluted, but this is the selling point.

Second, the idea that the 30% rate would be revenue neutral is false as it factors in amounts that the government would be paying itself in taxes. Essentially the government would pay 30% on everything it purchases and receive that 30% back in taxes. Proponents of the "Fair Tax" use this additional "revenue" as a selling point when the truth is that it is a fraud. There is no increased revenue. As a result, the "Fair Tax" rate would have to be much much higher than the 30% they propose.

Third, add local sales tax on top of the "Fair Tax" and you're at 35% in most places even without increasing the tax rate to be somewhere close to revenue neutral.

The "Fair Tax" is a fraud.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top