i hope Bush is able to get rid of this turd

7/21/2005 5:26:36 PM

agreed.

7/21/2005 6:31:41 PM

I have a better idea! Why not scrap the primary tax system and completely replace it with the alternative minimum tax!

7/21/2005 11:52:01 PM

7/21/2005 11:53:20 PM

The National Sales Tax now being considered in congress would completely eliminate the alternative Min. Tax as well as the federal with-holding tax, the social security tax, the death tax, and capital gains tax. Instead of taxing earnings, the new system would tax spending.

7/22/2005 10:13:56 AM

Is that the Fair-Tax? http://www.fairtax.org

That would be even better.

7/22/2005 10:29:18 AM

^^I think somebody showed Boortz TWW.

^yes

[Edited on July 22, 2005 at 10:38 AM. Reason : d]

7/22/2005 10:38:35 AM

i'm not on your side there

i mean, i'm on the L3ft after all

just the AMT is retarded

7/22/2005 6:51:13 PM

eh.. you'll evolve.

7/22/2005 11:05:50 PM

Since fairtax came up, I had some concerns about the idea that I never really got an answer from. I've emailed them several times and still not heard a response from them. In case anyone here is a little bit closer to these guys or could answer these questions themselves:

1. It is regressive

You can add in all the rebates you want, that won't change the taxed base. SALES TAXES ARE REGRESSIVE. This is because consumption level rises much more slowly than than disposable income. This is due to fixed consumption. To explain it more clearly, the poor and middle class are forced to spend more of their income in order to survive. They are being tax more because proportionally the taxed rate for the rich rises much slower than the proportional taxed rate for the poor and middle class.

The blue line is disposable income, the purple line is taxed consumption, I assumed a 30% increase of spending (probably MUCH MUCH more than actual, but I didn't want to hear shit about my graph being misleading)


2. It removes the economic stabilization income tax provides

Income tax is an economic stabilizer, it helps our economy bounce back from recessions and slow down inflations. Our economy would take huge hits and plunge into depressions after the smallest recessions under the fairtax system. For example, let's say the economy takes a downturn and spending slows down. Your company takes a hit and lays you off. You STILL have to pay taxes even though you make NO MONEY. This is going to really curb your spending, causing a further hit in the economy. Meanwhile the big wigs are still only taking on a minuscule proportion of the tax burden, while you are forced to take on the largest part while STILL UNEMPLOYED.

3. It will foster a black market and has huge, completely legal loopholes.

First off, black markets will get much larger as the comparative gain for buying black market goes from 2% to 30%. Secondly, Untaxed consumption is a huge part of american consumption. Everytime you buy vegetables from a street vendor, download illegal music or movies off the internet, buy merchandise off of ebay or thousands of other things, you add to the untaxed portion of consumption. What do you think will happen when the tax rate on everything else jumps up 30%?

And finally, There is a huge loophole on how corporations are taxed. Corporations are only required to pay tax on FINAL GOODS, so I'll incorporate myself. My corporation won't have to pay any taxes on final goods I buy (my car, my house, computers, appliances) and I'll produce one $1 widget a month and sell it to my wife and it will be the only taxes we'll pay all month. All I have to say is that I produce my good in my house, or I use my car to transport my good, and instantly my house and my car change from final goods taxed at 30% to intermediate goods taxed at 0%. AND ALL OF THIS WOULD BE COMPLETELY LEGAL, there would be no way to prevent things like this without taxing corporations for intermediate goods.

7/23/2005 12:35:01 AM

Quote :

"What do you think will happen when the tax rate on everything else jumps up 30%?"

Ask Canada. They have a 30% sales tax (or at least they did when I was there last).

7/23/2005 9:20:22 AM

Quote :

"And finally, There is a huge loophole on how corporations are taxed. Corporations are only required to pay tax on FINAL GOODS, so I'll incorporate myself. My corporation won't have to pay any taxes on final goods I buy (my car, my house, computers, appliances)"

Corporations still pay the sales tax on office supplies, cars, appliances etc. They just don't pay the tax on raw materials needed to produce their product. Final products are only taxed once.

Quote :

"black markets will get much larger as the comparative gain for buying black market goes from 2% to 30%. "

Currently, it just takes one person to cheat on their income tax...the tax-payer. With the FairTax, it will require two people to cheat..the buyer and the seller. Also with the FairTax, the gov't will be monitoring a vastly smaller group of tax filers, namely retailers...as opposed to the millions of individual tax-filers we have now.

Quote :

"Income tax is an economic stabilizer,"

The poor will still pay little or no federal taxes just as they do now. The monthly pre-bate will put the money back into their pockets that they will pay in sales tax-up to the poverty level.

Regular sales taxes are regressive. But the FairTax is different. It rebates the amount of sales tax paid up to the poverty level for everyone. Each month, you get a check from Uncle Sam.

Who will like the FairTAx? Regular working Americans, people who want to save their money and don't want to be punished for achieving success.

Who will not like the FairTax? Many politicians, Lobbyists, Tax-accountants, and socialists.

7/24/2005 6:12:12 PM

Quote :

"Ask Canada. They have a 30% sales tax (or at least they did when I was there last)."

Canadaians still have income tax, their government provides more for it's citzens so it doesn't surprise me that the relative tax rate is higher.

Quote :

"Corporations still pay the sales tax on office supplies, cars, appliances etc. They just don't pay the tax on raw materials needed to produce their product. Final products are only taxed once."

Quote :

"Business-to-business purchases for the production of goods and services are not taxed."

Buildings, cars, appliances, and office supplies are intermediate goods if they are used by a business.

Quote :

"Currently, it just takes one person to cheat on their income tax...the tax-payer."

People decide to cheat or not by how much of their ass is on the line, not how many people are involved. With fairtax, my ass is not on the line at all, the retailor is. Let's look at two example crimes, speeding and ticket scalping. I could easily break the law if it was all I had to do, and I'm sure the millions of illegal shopkeeps could as well.

Quote :

"The poor will still pay little or no federal taxes just as they do now. The monthly pre-bate will put the money back into their pockets that they will pay in sales tax-up to the poverty level."

Notice the graph accounts for that.

Quote :

"It rebates the amount of sales tax paid up to the poverty level for everyone. Each month, you get a check from Uncle Sam."

Then you are simply shifting your unfair tax burden onto those above the poverty line. Moving it around doesn't make it any less regressive.

Quote :

"Who will like the FairTAx?"

The rich

Quote :

"Who will not like the FairTax?"

The middle class

7/24/2005 9:14:39 PM

Quote :

"Canadaians still have income tax, their government provides more for it's citzens so it doesn't surprise me that the relative tax rate is higher."

But you were saying such a high sales tax rate would devastate the nations economy (or at least drive all of it underground), which has obviously not happened in Canada.

7/24/2005 11:41:07 PM

Quote :

"With fairtax, my ass is not on the line at all, the retailor is."

True. But the retailers want to stay in business. The majority of them aren't gonna risk their livelihood by selling you tax-free goods. The states will be collecting the sales tax and passing it along to the feds. And the states are very good at collecting that sales tax, shutting you down quick if you don't pay them. Granted, some people will cheat...just like the 25% of tax-payers cheating the current federal income tax system. The good thing is that cheating will be more difficult to do under the FairTax, and easier to catch.

Quote :

"you are simply shifting your unfair tax burden onto those above the poverty line."

The tax range for everyone is 0% up to no more than 30%. The rebate will keep the poor down around 0%. The middle class will be paying around 15% for their goods after the rebate. The rich, who typically purchase the most, will be paying closer to the 30% rate. So the progressiveness is still there.
"...the FairTax is progressive based on lifestyle/spending choices, rather than simply punishing those taxpayers who are successful."



Annual expenditures vs. FairTax effective tax rates, for a family of four

7/24/2005 11:45:39 PM

Quote :

"But you were saying such a high sales tax rate would devastate the nations economy (or at least drive all of it underground), which has obviously not happened in Canada."

You are taking it out of context. Look at it relative to the rest of the taxes.

Quote :

"True. But the retailers want to stay in business."

But retailers are more that willing to take the risk as the payoff increases.

Quote :

"The good thing is that cheating will be more difficult to do under the FairTax, and easier to catch."

Why do you think that? It is much harder to catch someone who makes his living avoiding taxes than it is to catch joe-schmoe taxpayer cheating on his taxes.

Quote :

"The middle class will be paying around 15% for their goods after the rebate. The rich, who typically purchase the most, will be paying closer to the 30% rate."

This is where your system fails.

The rich spend the LEAST. Looking at the plain dollar amount is a worthless comparison, look at how much the rich spend relative to their income, the rich spend MUCH LESS. Thus if we are only taxing what is spent and the middle class obviously spends a larger percentage of their income, they have more taxed income than the rich, THUS MAKING THE SYSTEM FUNDEMENTALLY REGRESSIVE.

Quote :

"Annual expenditures vs. FairTax effective tax rates, for a family of four"

Wow a completely meaningless graph. Your graph must include income to show if it is regressive or not.

7/30/2005 12:16:07 AM

Quote :

"look at how much the rich spend relative to their income"

Are you arguing that rich people keep their money in a matress?

While you are right and the rich often spend less of their income directly on themselves, the money does still get spent, merely indirectly. If I take my money and invest it, it is often then going to be spent on my behalf. For example, purchasing machine tools and construction materials, all of which are subject to a sales tax.

The only difference is that instead of being taxed directly (and visibly) my taxes are paid in the form of a reduced return on my savings because now the equipment costs more and the goods produced sell for less.

7/30/2005 12:58:19 AM

Keep in mind that you are currently paying a 20% embedded tax on everything you purchase. This reflects all of the federal taxes that are paid in the process of producing goods and services.

The FairTax eliminates these embedded taxes and prices will fall due to competitive pressures. The 23% sales tax will basically balance out the savings from embedded taxes and we will be paying about the same for items as we do now. Only now, you get a rebate check from the gov't each month to cover the taxes paid on necessities (thus removing the poor from the tax-rolls).

You also save the money you pay each year for tax return preparation. You also get all of your pay-check and are no longer punished for achieving. The country would turn into a giant tax-haven, attracting capital investment from all over the world.

It is futile to discuss this with communists such as our pal Kris, who at their core despise our capitalistic system. They are the last ones who want to see our economy succeed.

btw... the Linder/Boortz FairTax book will be released on Aug 2. It's already topping Amazon's best-seller lists. The book, tour and TV press will generate a lot of interest in the cause.




This will definitely be a grass-roots project. The Washington establishment, both democrat and republican, will do everything they can to kill the FairTax. The people will have to start demanding action (as they did with the recent eminent domain ruling).

7/30/2005 1:25:37 AM

Quote :

"Are you arguing that rich people keep their money in a matress?"

Of course not, obviously the rich save and invest the most relative to their income as well.

Quote :

"While you are right and the rich often spend less of their income directly on themselves, the money does still get spent, merely indirectly."

And this does not get taxed.

Quote :

"The only difference is that instead of being taxed directly (and visibly) my taxes are paid in the form of a reduced return on my savings because now the equipment costs more and the goods produced sell for less."

That's not going to happen. First off, equipment is untaxed as it is an intermediate good. Secondly people will turn to another form of investment if the rate of return lowers on one type.

Quote :

"Keep in mind that you are currently paying a 20% embedded tax on everything you purchase. This reflects all of the federal taxes that are paid in the process of producing goods and services."

I'd suppose you dont have any evidence to back that number up.

Quote :

"The 23% sales tax will basically balance out the savings from embedded taxes and we will be paying about the same for items as we do now."

Bullshit, it restructures the tax system. It taxes the middle class more, because they spend a larger percentage of their income, while the rich spend less and are taxed less.

If you wanted to do that you would have to ONLY TAX MARGINAL CONSUMPTION NOT AUTONOMUS CONSUMPTION. You are under the dellusion that APC is a flat line located at the poverty line, a common mistake made by people who don't understand economics. APC rises with income, so unfortunatley to meet your goal you'd be defeating your purpose as you'd have to have an income taxing system in place anyways.

Quote :

"You also save the money you pay each year for tax return preparation."

If you aren't a moron you shouldn't be spending that money anyways. I'm no accountant, yet I easily do my own taxes.

7/30/2005 1:52:36 PM

Quote :

"equipment is untaxed as it is an intermediate good"

What is this you speak? "equipment" is a good for sale as any other good. Last I checked, the tax man sees no difference between my SUV and a bulldozer. Perhaps you intend to say capital goods should be treated differently than consumer goods. If so then perhaps that should have been what you said.

7/31/2005 3:51:35 PM

Quote :

"Are you arguing that rich people keep their money in a matress? "

Not at all.

Let's break it down for you

Person A has a family of 4 and makes 40,000 a year

Person B has a family of 4 and makes 100,000 a year

In order to support a family of 4, it is necessary to spend 35,000 a year

Therefore, Person A is being taxed on 87.5 cents per dollar that he makes

Where as Person B is being taxed on only 35 cents to the dollar. Now, Person B could spend and upwards of 52,000 more a year and not reach the same level of taxation as Person A. That douchebag is regressive.

[Edited on July 31, 2005 at 4:12 PM. Reason : not a grammar error]

7/31/2005 4:03:31 PM

just to grammar ninja you, I think you meant to say that person B makes 100K

7/31/2005 4:11:43 PM

You completely ignored what I said, smakr.

Person B spent 65,000 on sewing machines to start a new factory.

With a flat sales tax, he payed 30% sales tax on the machines.

With an income tax system, he paid the same 30%. The only way Person B could avoid paying the full 30% is if he shoved a portion of his salary in a matress.

Of course, in a far larger scale, with a flat 30% income tax, the full 30% would eventually paid in full... but I think the explanation would be too confusing for you.

[Edited on July 31, 2005 at 9:41 PM. Reason : .]

7/31/2005 9:40:00 PM

Quote :

"What is this you speak? "equipment" is a good for sale as any other good."

Do you know what an "intermediate good" is? It is a good that is used in order to produce a final good. Suppose you build cars. All the parts you buy to build that car are intermediate goods, the car is a final good. Now why does that matter? Ask fairtax!

Quote :

"The FairTax is a single-rate, federal sales tax collected only once, at the final point of purchase of new goods and services for personal consumption. Used items are not taxed. Business-to-business purchases for the production of goods and services are not taxed."

That means that you don't have to pay any tax on that nice company car or for those business trips to guam etc. Rich people love it!

Quote :

"With a flat sales tax, he payed 30% sales tax on the machines."

Oh, I was talking about fairtax, flat tax is stupid too, but much less stupid than fairtax.

7/31/2005 11:58:34 PM

Quote :

"You completely ignored what I said, smakr. "

No I did not ignore your fucking idiotic argument. The fact remains that fair-tax is regressive as all sin. the fact that the more someone makes, the less the tax burden falls on them is not how a tax system should work.

8/1/2005 4:45:57 AM

Quote :

"Ask fairtax!"

Oh, I didn't realize fairtax exempted what you are calling "intermediate goods." But I must ask, was the factory itself an intermediate good? The machines are obviously not intermediate goods, they are final goods and I am the end user. Or are you saying sewing machines are tax free at WalMart because they might be used to make goods?

8/1/2005 10:09:17 AM

Remember that with the FairTax, the poor pay no federal taxes. No matter how many examples you create, they pay no federal taxes.. how is "no taxes" regressive?

Currently the poor pay payroll taxes. Those would be eliminated under the FairTax. They are also paying the 20% embedded tax on all goods and services. That would be eliminated under the FairTax. A married couple with two children would be protected by the rebate from tax on the first $25,000 /year they spend. So they can spend $2083 per month on new items tax-free. And any used items they buy are completely tax-free.

Communists should embrace the FairTax if they think it will not work. Let the greedy capitalist pigs put the tax in place and let the country fall into ruin, that way the communist revolution can occur sooner and the country can flourish in a marxist nirvana!

8/1/2005 10:55:27 AM

40,000 a year is considered middle class, not poor.

All fair tax accomplishes is transfering the tax burden even more so on the middle and working classes of america and the rich escape unfazed.

Quote :

"Communists should embrace the FairTax if they think it will not work. Let the greedy capitalist pigs put the tax in place and let the country fall into ruin, that way the communist revolution can occur sooner and the country can flourish in a marxist nirvana! "

do you even understand communism?

[Edited on August 1, 2005 at 10:56 AM. Reason : .]

[Edited on August 1, 2005 at 10:58 AM. Reason : .]

8/1/2005 10:56:12 AM

"...After destructing the old order, revolutionaries help build a new government that adheres to the emerging social relationships that have been made possible by the advanced productive forces"
--Che Guevara

Che would've love the FairTax if he thought it would help destruct the old order.

From what I've read, Bush's tax committee is probably just going to reccommend the elimination of the AMT. Of course taxes will have to be raised and some deductions eliminated for everyone to "pay" for the missing AMT taxes. What kind of reform is that?

8/1/2005 11:15:16 AM

Look, while I think this "fairtax" crap is interesting, and not "regressive" as these blokes let on, I still dislike it. I would greately prefer a simplified income tax system as proposed by Ronald Reagan (0%, 15%, 25%, 35%). Your "FairTax" proposal would require amending the constitution. A simplified tax system would require nothing more than 51% of both houses.

8/1/2005 12:36:05 PM

i actually like the idea of a luxury tax, so long as it's actually applied as it's supposed to be

maybe it will cut down on rampant overspending and consumerism and make people actually think about what they're buying.

8/1/2005 1:15:31 PM

I know what I'm buying, a leer jet!

And a really big house! Why not? Isn't the world going to shit anyway? Better spend it while you can!

8/1/2005 2:35:38 PM

Quote :

"But I must ask, was the factory itself an intermediate good?"

Yes, it is a business-to-business purchase to be used to make a final good.

Quote :

"The machines are obviously not intermediate goods, they are final goods and I am the end user. Or are you saying sewing machines are tax free at WalMart because they might be used to make goods?"

That's exactly what I'm saying. Let's look at the car example. Tires that GM buys to put on it's cars are intermediate goods, because the car that they are put on is the final good. Now suppose you go and buy some replacement tires, those are final goods, even though they are the exact same tires. The sewing machine is an untaxed intermediate good if bought by a business, and a heavily taxed final good if bought by a consumer.

Quote :

"Remember that with the FairTax, the poor pay no federal taxes. No matter how many examples you create, they pay no federal taxes.. how is "no taxes" regressive?"

REGRESSIVE ISN'T DETERMINED BY HOW MUCH THE POOR PAY! IT IS DETERMINED BY HOW THE TAX SYSTEM IS SET UP. SALES TAXES ARE REGRESSIVE, NO MATTER IF THE POOR ARE EXEMPT OR NOT. The poor being exempt just shifts that tax burden onto the middle class.

Quote :

"Currently the poor pay payroll taxes."

No they don't, employers do.

Quote :

"A married couple with two children would be protected by the rebate from tax on the first $25,000 /year they spend. So they can spend $2083 per month on new items tax-free."

To bad their APC is much higher than that.

Quote :

"Let the greedy capitalist pigs put the tax in place and let the country fall into ruin, that way the communist revolution can occur sooner and the country can flourish in a marxist nirvana!"

I love order. I think you embrace it because you want to bankrupt the government so you can live in your chaotic anarchist dreamworld.

8/1/2005 3:21:00 PM

Wow, Kris, FairTax sucks! Whenever I buy tires they are going to have to ask me what they are for! This sounds even more invasive than the current fuck-the-ass system.

Why not a simple sales tax on everything, regardless of purpose or use? Why does everything the government does have to be so fucking complex?

8/1/2005 5:28:02 PM

Quote :

"The machines are obviously not intermediate goods,"

The FairTax book, written by the bill's sponsor rep. Linder, should hopefully clear up this area of confusion.

As for the payroll tax...yes all employees do pay it. Every worker, including the poor, have money deducted for Social Security (the payroll tax). Employers pay half and employees the other half. The FairTax removes this tax from your paycheck.

The rebate will have a more helpful effect on low and middle class spenders. It will have less of helpful effect on high earners.

There's a problem with the flat-tax, L-Snark. Reagan successfully flattened the income tax somewhat reducing rates, and also removing some deductions. 20 years later, the deductions are still gone, but the rates have risen even higher than before. It still punishes earning. Plus the flat tax still forces you to file those onerous returns. Tax compliance costs citizens millions and millions of bucks each year.

With the FairTax, the gov't is denied more meddling into your personal finances. Tax increases are much more visible. Tax compliance costs drop dramatically. It would encourage savings. Foreign tourists would be helping fund social security. The country would become the biggest tax-haven in the world.

I would take the analysis of kommunist Kris with a grain of the people's salt. Remember that he despises our capitalistic system. Communists don't want our system to work. They're afraid that ideas such as the FairTax would unleash the strength of capitalism, so they will try to stop it at every turn.

I embrace capitalism. It's great! The role of the gov't is to protect us from force and fraud, secure our property rights and then get out of the way.

Yea, the FairTax would require a lot more work to pass, but that's not a good excuse not to try. Most worthwhile projects require effort. Politicians will try to pass the weakest, most watered down bill possible and call it "reform" because they don't want to lose power. It will require average citizens to apply the pressure for real change.

8/1/2005 6:22:05 PM

Quote :

"I would take the analysis of kommunist Kris with a grain of the people's salt. Remember that he despises our capitalistic system. Communists don't want our system to work. They're afraid that ideas such as the FairTax would unleash the strength of capitalism, so they will try to stop it at every turn."

whatever his motivation it doesn't make him any less-right

8/1/2005 6:47:12 PM

First off, I don't hate capitalism any more than I hate something like the telegram. But that's all ad homeniem. He resorts to attacking something totally irrelevant as his fairtax house of cards falls to the floor.

Quote :

"Why not a simple sales tax on everything, regardless of purpose or use? Why does everything the government does have to be so fucking complex?"

Because if you tax every good that is bought your car goes from being taxed once to being taxed a hundred thousand times. First you'll pay sales tax on the car itself, then you'll have to help pay for the taxes on each indivdual part that the company buys to make the car. For example GM pays tax on the tires they buy from Goodwrench, Goodwrench pays tax on the rubber they buy from Joe's rubber, etc, etc.

Taxing is complex because life is complex, sorry that's just the way the world works.

Quote :

"The FairTax book, written by the bill's sponsor rep. Linder, should hopefully clear up this area of confusion."

The one sentence summary of Fairtax makes it pretty clear.

Quote :

"The rebate will have a more helpful effect on low and middle class spenders. It will have less of helpful effect on high earners."

Bullshit. Learn what APC and MPC are and how their relationship with disposable income. If you understood that you'd easily see how fairtax is regressive.

Quote :

"Foreign tourists would be helping fund social security."

They are in our system according to you. You say that products cost more because of the embedded tax right?

8/1/2005 7:05:44 PM

Quote :

"The one sentence summary of Fairtax makes it pretty clear."

yaaaaaaaaay for basing our entire opinion of something on one fucking sentence which is supposed to serve as a fucking summary, not an in depth look at every possible scenario covered by something. AKA, if FairTax actually addresses your concern over intermediate goods, then simply looking at that summary would not likely reveal such a thing, and ED's or LS's points are possibly quite valid, and yours would be m00t, further proving the previous assertion that we must take your analysis of this system with a huge fucking grain of salt.

just for argument's sake, Kris, lets assume that fairtax DID address your alleged concern over intermediate goods. How would it need to do such a thing (what would the ultimate end be)? And, how would you then view FairTax?

8/1/2005 8:06:35 PM

Quote :

"yaaaaaaaaay for basing our entire opinion of something on one fucking sentence which is supposed to serve as a fucking summary, not an in depth look at every possible scenario covered by something."

I'm looking at it as in depth as someone could look at income tax from the breif summary of "you are taxed by you income in brackets". It's extremely obvious that fairtax would only tax final goods for the reason I just explained, otherwise you're taxing everything a thousand times.

Quote :

"AKA, if FairTax actually addresses your concern over intermediate goods, then simply looking at that summary would not likely reveal such a thing"

Fairtax addresses it fairly well, you just didn't bother to read

Quote :

"What is taxed? The FairTax is a single-rate, federal sales tax collected only once, at the final point of purchase of new goods and services for personal consumption. Used items are not taxed. Business-to-business purchases for the production of goods and services are not taxed."

http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/faq.html

Quote :

"further proving the previous assertion that we must take your analysis of this system with a huge fucking grain of salt"

The problem is that no one is willing to admit how stupid it is. Fairtax.org won't the basic arguement I'm seeing here is "it isnt regressive, youre stupid and communist". If you think it's wrong, be my guest, but the problem here is my arguement is waterproof and fairtax holds water as well as fishnet pantyhose.

Quote :

"How would it need to do such a thing (what would the ultimate end be)?"

It can't. Sales taxes CANNOT replace income taxes. Sales taxes hurt consumers and and are regressive. They aren't bad as small state taxes, but it just wouldn't work as a replacement for federal income tax.

8/1/2005 8:37:44 PM

Quote :

"Sales taxes CANNOT replace income taxes."

see, thats where I think you are wrong. A blanket sales tax w/ no tweaking whatsoever would certainly be regressive. A properly tweaked sales tax could be progressive, but it would likely be just as complicated as the current system, thus providing no real benefit or reason to switch to it.

I'll gladly admit that I know very little about fairtax, but I did want to ask that earlier question, just for the point of asking it.

although, I must say that I do disagree somewhat with the previous point concerning person A and person B. It is a somewhat unrealistic look at the situation, as a person making 100K is not going to spend 35K to support his family. if anything, the person making 100K will spend more. Whether or not he spends the 85K necessary to "balance it out" to the person making 40K is another matter. In some respects, I would say that the person making 100K deserves to be able to put more of that money to use before he reaches the 30% taxation level, as he has likely worked hard for it(ahhh, Kris, don't start in on the "conditioned" argument. wait a second). AKA, if the man can't spend the money, then what fucking good does it do him? (ala, mattress argument) However, an interesting thing to note from such a scenario is that it does seem to offer an incentive to those who are more wealthy to spend their money, as that money is allegedly not being taxed as heavily. Such an incentive could serve to spur economic conditions, no?

Its also important to note (possibly, if I am reading this correctly), that the aforementioned Person A/B example is also a bit flawed, as apparently there is a blanket 25K initial cap on which nothing is "taxed." Thus, in this example, person A is not "taxed on 35K" of spending, but rather on 10K of spending. That yields a dramatically different level of taxation than what was originally proposed. Of course, the more money a person makes, the more of a disparity exists if you assume that both parties spend 35K on their families. However, that assertion is fundamentally flawed, as no millionaire is going to spend only 35K on his family...

Of course, this reasoning sounds a lot like a support for lessening some of the tax burden on the rich. But, in some respects, the natural conflict here is the historical one between "punishing success" and "letting those better able to support the gov'ts coffers do so." Or, as Kris would put it, "putting the heavier burden on those who are more benefitted by the system."

8/1/2005 9:06:30 PM

Quote :

"A blanket sales tax w/ no tweaking whatsoever would certainly be regressive. A properly tweaked sales tax could be progressive, but it would likely be just as complicated as the current system, thus providing no real benefit or reason to switch to it."

The only way to make a sales tax become progressive would be to base it on INCOME rather than SALES, thus making it an income tax rather than a sales tax. There's no way for a SALES tax (a tax based on SALES) to become progressive, simply because disposable income rises much faster than the marginal propensity to consume, it's an accepted fact of economics.

Quote :

"Whether or not he spends the 85K necessary to "balance it out" to the person making 40K is another matter."

It's called marginal propensity to consume, its a very widely studied subject in economics, you seem to just be stabbing in the dark at it. But to answer your question, consumption never rises at the same rate as consumption.

Quote :

"Of course, this reasoning sounds a lot like a support for lessening some of the tax burden on the rich."

There are valid economic reasons for managing the wealth gap, not simply humanitarian ones. See #2 on my original fairtax blast. I don't just think the poor deserve to be at the same level as the rich, but it helps the economy run smoother with everyone at or close to this level.

8/1/2005 10:21:34 PM

T. Coleman Andrews served as Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service for three years, from 1953 to 1955. Upon his resignation, Andrews made the following statement. ..

Quote :

"The income tax is bad because it has robbed you and me of the guarantee of privacy and the respect for our property that were given to us in Article IV of the Bill of Rights. This invasion is absolute and complete as far as the amount of tax that can be assessed is concerned. Please remember that under the Sixteenth Amendment, Congress can take 100-percent of our income anytime it wants to. As a matter of fact, right now it is imposing a tax as high as 91%. This is downright confiscation and cannot be defended on any other grounds. The income tax is bad because it was conceived in class hatred, is an instrument of vengeance and plays right into the hands of the communists. It employs the vicious communist principle of taking from each according to his accumulation of the fruits of his labor and giving to others according to their needs, regardless of whether those needs are the result of indolence or lack of pride, self-respect, personal dignity or other attributes of men. The income tax is fulfilling the Marxist prophecy that the surest way to destroy a capitalist society is by steeply graduated taxes on income and heavy levies upon the estates of people when they die. As matters now stand, if our children make the most of their capabilities and training, they will have to give most of it to the tax collector and so become slaves of the government. People cannot pull themselves up by the bootstraps anymore because the tax collector gets the boots and the straps as well. The income tax is bad because it is oppressive to all and discriminates particularly against those people who prove themselves most adept at keeping the wheels of business turning and creating maximum employment and a high standard of living for their fellow men. I believe that a better way to raise revenue not only can be found but must be found because I am convinced that the present system is leading us right back to the very tyranny from which those, who established this land of freedom, risked their live, their fortunes and their sacred honor to forever free themselves."

Communists and socialists are highly motivated to keep the current income tax in place and growing in both rates and complication. They are not arguing in good faith, for they do not want our economic system to succeed. They want to continue our country down the road towards gradually growing socialism in the hopes that the gov't will be able someday to condition humans into accepting slavery under communism.

The FairTax is a way to reform our federal tax system so that those who support our economic system can have more control over when and how much tax they want to pay. It is for those of us who want the gov't out of our private business affairs. Taxes should be collected with the only purpose being to pay the bills of the country. Taxes should not be used to make life fair, level the playing field, or redistribute he wealth.

8/1/2005 11:42:56 PM

Quote :

"T. Coleman Andrews served as Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service for three years, from 1953 to 1955. Upon his resignation, Andrews made the following statement. .."

Some old conservative nutball. How is this source any more reputable than any other as he is simply giving his opinion.

It looks like stupid shit to me right from the start. What does the right to bear arms have to do with income tax?

Quote :

"As a matter of fact, right now it is imposing a tax as high as 91%."

I do my taxes, I certainly don't pay 91%.

Quote :

"Communists and socialists are highly motivated to keep the current income tax in place and growing in both rates and complication. They are not arguing in good faith, for they do not want our economic system to succeed. They want to continue our country down the road towards gradually growing socialism in the hopes that the gov't will be able someday to condition humans into accepting slavery under communism."

You can't actually defend your arguement so you resort to name calling. Seems a little childish for a man of your age, perhaps you are just feeling a bit insecure as your ignorance of economics is exposed.

Quote :

"It is for those of us who want the gov't out of our private business affairs."

It's for people who want to go back to feudalism.

Quote :

"Taxes should not be used to make life fair, level the playing field, or redistribute he wealth."

They aren't. They are just using the most effective taxation system. SALES TAXES WILL NOT WORK. IVE EXPLAINED WHY AND YOU JUST STICK YOUR FINGERS IN YOUR EARS.

8/2/2005 12:19:50 AM

Quote :

"Communists and socialists are highly motivated to keep the current income tax in place and growing in both rates and complication. They are not arguing in good faith, for they do not want our economic system to succeed. They want to continue our country down the road towards gradually growing socialism in the hopes that the gov't will be able someday to condition humans into accepting slavery under communism."

8/2/2005 12:26:19 AM

Fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face.

I have here in my hand a list of two hundred and five people that were known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping the policy of the State Department.

8/2/2005 12:30:41 AM

Quote :

"As a matter of fact, right now it is imposing a tax as high as 91%"

Take a fucking history lessson. that 91% tax bracket was implemented prior to World War II so as to prevent war profiteering that happened in World War I. Unless a massive depression would come through again there'd be no way in hell people would want a high tax bracket.

Furthermore, the individuals paying 91% on their income tax were the top .001% of society. The Average joe wasn't paying anything near that.

8/2/2005 1:04:10 PM

I'd just like to hear thge explaination for this "The income tax is bad because it has robbed you and me of the guarantee of privacy and the respect for our property that were given to us in Article IV of the Bill of Rights."

8/2/2005 1:39:03 PM

Quote :

"Take a fucking history lessson. that 91% tax bracket was implemented prior to World War II so as to prevent war profiteering that happened in World War I. Unless a massive depression would come through again there'd be no way in hell people would want a high tax bracket."

In fact, it only applied to one person- J.D. Rockefeller

8/2/2005 3:22:33 PM

Exactly, the man predicted an apocalypse that never happened

8/2/2005 3:54:23 PM

Quote :

"SALES TAXES ARE REGRESSIVE, NO MATTER IF THE POOR ARE EXEMPT OR NOT. The poor being exempt just shifts that tax burden onto the middle class."

I couldn't narrow down tyo a single quote so I chose this one. I am assuming that your basic arguemnt is that consumption taxes are by nature regressive.

This is not quite true. The structure can be altered to make it progressive. There are two basic ways.

(1) Creating a bundle of exempt goods which have an extremely low income elasticity. The most obvious example is food. If you are doing a VAT then you can also exempt steel or cotton, or things that are a high percentage of "necessary" items.

Thus the poor who spend a higher fraction on necesseties are subject to a less frequent taxation.

(2) Give everyone a tax credit. Not an exemption or deduction but a credit. That is, a check. If everyone gets an equal rebate check then the check will more than cover the tax for poorer people, partially cover it for lower middle class and be all but irrelevant to the rich.

Thus without actually having to ask people how much they make (which would largely defeat the purpose of a consumption tax) you can establish a structure which on net gives to the poor and takes from the rich.

8/2/2005 5:20:43 PM