Printable View
www.fairtax.org
Ok, all you college students and economic majors. I was sent an email from a relative about this Fair Tax reform that is being pushed. Add your views if you want, or just vote.
I'm not a college grad, and the college I did take was all math related and not economic or government related.
But I like the concept of this, so my vote goes for it would be a good thing.
This will never happen.
good but won't happen
I was kinda hoping there would be some views on why it wouldn't happen if it was a good thing.
I'm figuring the politicians think it would take money out of their pockets. Which would be another good thing in my opinion.
By the way, I went to the website and signed the electronic petition. They also have a statistics page that shows which politicians are for it and which are against and who is undecided or not commited.
It's basically the same system Texas uses instead of having state taxes.
Just another thought. This would also draw in taxes from those who don't claim everything on what they make. Or even don't claim anything at all. The ones who get paid straight cash for there work. Like lawn care people, and even the illegal aliens working in the country for businesses who pay them cash under the table for their work, so they don't get caught using illegal aliens. All these people would essentially be paying their share of taxes under this law, because their not going to quit buying things to keep from paying their taxes.
So they're calling it the fair tax now? It's a fitting name. I've always been in favor of this idea. I'm no economics major and I don't really know how practical this is, but I like the idea of illegal immigrants, drug dealers, etc. being forced to pay taxes like the rest of us. Also the elite would not be able to take advantage of loop holes in the tax code.
Unfortunately there is very little support for it (especially from democrats).
The "fair tax" would drastically reduce taxes for the wealthiest Americans. It is a bad idea. Naturally, Republicans are all for it.
FYI, Drug dealers are forced to pay taxes in the current system.
Abolish the IRS? This will never happen. The IRS employees will never let this happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by samsonite2100
LOL HOW DOES ANYONE TAKE THIS ARGUMENT SERIOUSLY.Quote:
Originally Posted by samsonite2100
Yeah, they are forced to. Do they?
NO
yeah it's real fair for wealthy americans to have half their income immediately taxed by the governmentQuote:
Originally Posted by samsonite2100
NOT
How in the world does this work :shock: Lets see, under Job description on your tax return. Drug Dealer. Knock Knock, FBI OPEN UP, We have a warrent for your arrest. No self respecting drug dealer is going to claim his earnings from dealing drugs. He's going to make them find that out through an audit which he stands a better chance of not happening than claiming earnings for drug dealing.Quote:
Originally Posted by samsonite2100
Two things:Quote:
Originally Posted by samsonite2100
1. Any reduction in total tax collected would be more than compensated for by both the additional tax garnered from people who currently skirt out of paying taxes at all and the reduction in overhead created by running dozens of concurrent tax systems.
2. Wealthy Americans may be the highest tax bracket, but they usually dip right out of it with writeoffs.
Quote:
The "fair tax" would drastically reduce taxes for the wealthiest Americans.
I don't understand why these go hand in hand?Quote:
It is a bad idea.
Edit - http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smar...ebuttal-ov.pdf. Or do the math yourself - http://www.fairtax.org/tax_calc.html
The drug dealer thing was meant somewhat facetiously, but in point of fact, drug dealers are fair game for the IRS and often do get prosecuted if they don't find a way of channeling their illegal income into taxable income.
35%--One of the lowest tax rates in the world. Poor, poor rich people--you're right, Lukie, let's just keep hosing the middle class. Great idea.Quote:
yeah it's real fair for wealthy americans to have half their income immediately taxed by the government
NOT
Cynical and untrue--most people pay their taxes.Quote:
2. Wealthy Americans may be the highest tax bracket, but they usually dip right out of it with writeoffs.
Here's my take on the so-called fair tax--Under the current system, someone who makes a million a year pays around 350,000. Under the fair tax, they would pay around a 25% flat tax on all the money they spend on goods and services. Let's say they're totally profligate and spend half their yearly income on goods and services. This would amount to $125,000 a year paid in taxes--a $225,000 tax cut.
Further, rich people spend a proportionately smaller amount of their income on things like food. The fair tax is a regressive tax that would hit poor people disproportionately hard.
why is there this obsession with taxing the rich like they need to be punished? We're not communist, they're already taxed more than you, get over it.
as far as the fair tax, it seems like it might be alright, i don't know enough about economics to understand all of its implications, but it will never ever be implemented. if for no reason other than it is unnecessary and probably will bring about marginal improvement in exchange for great risk of ruin.
A very wise, very very rich Jewish friend of mine, who owns companies and real estate all over the world. Well at least the parts of the world that dont hold being Jewish against ya. He replied to an email I sent him about if this was a good idea or not. Here is his reply.
Well, first. Fair Tax is an oxymoron. Like military intelligence.
With your luck you will still end up with the IRS plus a VAT (Value Added Tax)
But you can't have it both ways doggie. You can't have the big fat pensions, social security and Medicare without being taxed, taxed, taxed.
The US Tax Code is impossible. No one is physically capable of complying with the Code, it is simply impossible. The IRS, the Government, Business and Workers all know this.
Lot's of luck straightening out your country.
Now at least on the Social Security and the Medicare the fair tax takes care of those just like the tax we have does now. Pensions, I'm not sure what tax has to do with (not even close to having economic knowledge). I'm not sure but I dont think the tax system pays for our pensions does it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabid Dog
Bush's initial 1.6 trillion dollar tax cut was distributed so that half went to the wealthiest one percent. 2/3 of his second tax cut went to the top 10%. I am not for punishing the rich--I am for an equitable system that does not punish the poor and middle class while handing out buckets of cash to those who need it the least.Quote:
why is there this obsession with taxing the rich like they need to be punished? We're not communist, they're already taxed more than you, get over it.
The fair tax does have a rebate built into it for the lower income families.
I could not disagree more. Taxes are easy peasy. I did them for my family this year, it took me like 1.5 days to figure it out and do it and it was the first time i've ever even looked at taxes.
and, we went to h&r block and a lady looked it over, and i had it exactly right except she fudged a little and said we could deduct more for medical expenses. I actually think she was wrong, but hey, more money for us, her problem if she's wrong.
*edit: I will add to this, my family doesn't do many complicated things. no small business ownership, no stock investing, nothing too complicated. I'm sure it can get a little more complicated, but i still don't see what people complain about. Their little 1040 booklet is really easy to follow.
Dog--For the record, I agree with the above. The US tax code is severely fucked and in need of an overhaul. But I don't believe that the fair tax is the solution to this problem.Quote:
But you can't have it both ways doggie. You can't have the big fat pensions, social security and Medicare without being taxed, taxed, taxed.
The US Tax Code is impossible. No one is physically capable of complying with the Code, it is simply impossible. The IRS, the Government, Business and Workers all know this.
Lot's of luck straightening out your country.
Do you happen to know what % of the tax rate was cut for the rich vs everyone else? By that i mean, don't look at it in $'s received by each group, look at what % less in taxes they pay? Did you consider that a cut in taxes by 1% for rich people will probably give them back a lot more money than will cutting taxes 5% for everyone else (obviously the 1 & 5% numbers are just guesses to make a point)Quote:
Originally Posted by samsonite2100
I didn't mean it negatively in the least - I didn't say the rich don't pay taxes. They are simply more able to afford proper tax counseling to pay the minimum obligation possible. It's not cheating, it's just taking advantage of the opportunities available.Quote:
Cynical and untrue--most people pay their taxes.Quote:
2. Wealthy Americans may be the highest tax bracket, but they usually dip right out of it with writeoffs.
I won't start a trickle-down economics debate, because I think that concept is overhyped, but I'm not denying anything you state here. Great, the rich get a huge tax cut... and?Quote:
Here's my take on the so-called fair tax--Under the current system, someone who makes a million a year pays around 350,000. Under the fair tax, they would pay around a 25% flat tax on all the money they spend on goods and services. Let's say they're totally profligate and spend half their yearly income on goods and services. This would amount to $125,000 a year paid in taxes--a $225,000 tax cut.
The point is that it's a FAIR tax - a federal tax of 35% on the wealthy is fair? Let's disregard for a minute whether they can actually afford to pay it or if it affects their livelihood in any way. We know the answer to that already.
Tax obligation would go down for every bracket and scenario I've tried, usually in the range of 4-8%. The only way your tax obligation goes up is if you're not currently paying taxes.Quote:
Further, rich people spend a proportionately smaller amount of their income on things like food. The fair tax is a regressive tax that would hit poor people disproportionately hard.
Once you cut out the IRS/filing/auditing overhead, the system allows for exactly the same amount of net tax revenue as we currently have at the benefit of every possible taxpayer scenario I've tested.
Can you find a (legal) situation where someone's obligation goes up?
wait i will answer for you *gasp*
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/repor...lan-chart2.gif
Easier for me to print this link than it is to post a pic. Hope it takes you to the right area. Supposed to be #48 of the FAQ.
http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/faq-main.html#33
Also you have to remember, this will bring in tax from those who don't pay taxes because they get paid straight cash under the table. Like the illegal aliens in our country.
Source please, Greedo.
Avatar--Firstly, as far as the rich being able to get out of paying their taxes, under the fair tax system it would be worse. Let's say, I own a business right now and make $5 million a year, spending 2 million a year on luxury goods. Right now I pay about 1.5 million in taxes. Under the fair tax system, since only retailer to individual transactions are taxable, I can reduce my salary to 3 million a year, and get my luxury goods through transactions between mine and other businesses. Two million bucks worth of free shit, totally untaxable. The loopholes in this system are gaping.
And yes, I think a 35% tax on the wealthiest Americans is abundantly fair.
The IRS is not a law enforcement agency, they cannot arrest you for paying your taxes no matter your occupation and they also cannot report you to the FBI or other agency. Also, self respecting drug dealer?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabid Dog
This statement is fairly broad, "taxed by the government." The federal governments highest tax bracket pays 35% in taxes, the highest state income tax is montana with 11%, including property taxes you may be getting close to 50%, but thats still a stretch and it isnt all being paid to one entity and really misses the bigger picture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lukie
I still disagree though.
Are taxes too high? Yes, but not just for the rich. Taxes are based on the ability to pay. Would you propose a flat tax? Lets say we institute a 20% tax for every citizen, somebody making $20,000 would pay $4,000 and somebody making $200,000 would pay $40,000. But who would be most affected? Obviously the person making $4,000 and the reason why should be pretty clear. Somebody making 10x as much as another person doesnt need to spend 10x as much just to get by, the lifestyles of the two people would not be affected the same. The person making 20,000 would have a much much harder time getting by than the person making 200,000 even though they pay proportionally the same.
This gets back to what I said before about missing the bigger picture. Why do we have to pay taxes? To fund government operations. Our current gov't apparently doesnt even collect enough to pay for all of its expenditures even though the rich are so unfairly taxed. Simply lowering the taxes of the rich would push us further into debt. The more we go into debt, the more bonds we sell, the more bonds we sell the weaker the dollar, a weak dollar can lead to inflation, etc. etc. Some debt can be manageable, but not the level it is at now and definitely not the level it would be if we had a tax cut at the level that currently pays far and away the greatest portion of our taxes. So what is the bigger picture? Cut spending. If we were to lower our spending then we would be at a level of funding that could be sustained by lower taxes, we cant change our taxes that much without spending less.
The fair tax is a bit different, after rereading the website it seems like it is a sales tax of 23% applied to all goods but then you get a monthly rebate to cover the cost of the essential goods, or something like that. Anyways, its a fairly confusing setup but it seems like at alright idea. Ill have to look into more before really knowing what I feel but it seems to atleast keep in mind the idea of ability to pay.
So really, before this post gets too long, if we want lower taxes [which i think is something that we really do need], then we must first lower spending. The fair tax seems like a good way to fix the tax side of things, but doesnt address what I think the bigger issue is of government spending.
1040s are easy, freshman year in high school we were taught how to fill them out. Own your own business and do the things that your family admitedly does not do and you will see that the tax code is overly complicated and filled with loopholes that benefit those who need it the least. Not everybody uses a 1040, people complain because it gets a lot more complicated when it really shouldnt have to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedo017
I agree that this is a problem that needs remedying, but the solution would be real immigration reform that not only makes these people taxable citizens, but also prevents huge corporations from using them as essentially free labor. You guys act like the current system has been set up to let illegal aliens get away w/ murder. The real winners in the current environment are companies like Raytheon that can pay their janitors 5 bucks an hour w/ no benefits and with no outgoing payroll taxes, etc.Quote:
Also you have to remember, this will bring in tax from those who don't pay taxes because they get paid straight cash under the table. Like the illegal aliens in our country.
add state tax, local tax, property tax, county tax, medicare, medicaid, etc, etc, etc, etc , etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, and a few hundred more etc's.Quote:
35%--One of the lowest tax rates in the world. Poor, poor rich people--you're right, Lukie, let's just keep hosing the middle class. Great idea.
this is a good postQuote:
Originally Posted by Greedo017
Compared worldwide we still are fairly low taxed, atleast when compared to 1st world countries, namely because we are one of the only industrialized nation [if not the only] without universal healthcare, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lukie
source for that picture is http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/reports/taxplan.html
and, point taken andy about the complexity of the tax system. I think this can probably be remedied without reforming the entire tax system though.
Read the full bill. Just like now, tax evasion is a punishable offense. With such a small set of rules, I think tax administrators would have a much easier time catching this, and the subset of people to look out for/audit is relatively small.Quote:
Originally Posted by samsonite2100
POTDQuote:
The way I look at it is I get to bring my whole paycheck home, which is the reason I work. Then I get to decide how I want to spend that whole paycheck. If I buy new items, I am taxed on that. If I buy used items, I am not. I haven't bought a new vehicle since the 80's. Every vehicle I have bought since has been used, albeit only a couple years old.
I dont mind at all that the rich pay the same percentage of consumption tax, their still going to pay way more than I ever would. I don't know too many rich folks that buy used.
I mean, wouldn't you like to bring home your whole paycheck? Actually people would probably spend more if they had their whole paycheck. And more spending would bring in more taxes. Once adjusted to the sales tax it would be an every day part of life. It works in Texas with their state tax which they dont have. I can only compare Texas to Oklahoma where I live. I absolutely hate paying state taxes and wish we would go to the system Texas uses. It could be the reason Texas has so much more business than Oklahoma has.
lol, yea you're right the whitehouse is a pretty unreliable source, i'll try to see if uruknet has anything on itQuote:
Originally Posted by samsonite2100
And not biased at all either. With no history of, erm, bending the truth to fit their agenda :roll: What rock have you been living under for the past six years? Sounds delightful, I might join you...Quote:
lol, yea you're right the whitehouse is a pretty unreliable source
I don't know what that is, but you could also try pretty much every other news source on the planet...Quote:
i'll try to see if uruknet has anything on it
Well since every other news source on the planet shows something other than what the whitehouse gives, it must be no problem for you to show me a graph that proves me wrong huh.Quote:
Originally Posted by samsonite2100
This graph made me laugh when I saw it:Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedo017
http://www.andy-akb.com/taxgraph.gif
On a more serious note:
http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/mar2001/tax-m13.pdf
http://www.apsanet.org/imgtest/March...%20Bartels.pdf
What I am looking for is something that says "Rich people currently pay a% in taxes, they are getting their taxes cut by x%. Everyone else currently pays b% in taxes, their taxes are getting cut by y%. x > y." I am not going to go through all of every source, it only takes 1 sentence or 1 graph to prove me wrong, which if you're familiar with the source you should be able to find it. Your sources use tricky wording, but they don't go against what the whitehouse source says as far as i can see.
the only interesting thing i saw in the wsws one was this, "When the full cut is phased in completely in 2006, the top income tax rate will fall from 39.6 percent to 33 percent. The lowest rate will fall from 15 percent to 10 percent."
But this is very misleading. only like 800 people pay the top tax rate, and even then, they only pay an actual rate of 27%, just as most people fall into the ~15% tax bracket, but most pay like ~7% actual. This doesn't comment on the tax change people will actually see, just the bounds.
the ctj one is so confusing, i've read it a couple times (have seen it before), i don't see what i am looking for said clearly though.
haven't read the apsanet one except the beginning. all i've gotten to so far is this "As a result, according to projections by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, the total federal tax burden in 2010 will decline by 25 percent for the richest one percent of taxpayers and by 21 percent for the next richest four percent, but by only 10 percent for taxpayers in the bottom 95 percent of the income distribution."
This is the same as the wsws one. It makes an implication and nothing more.
So if Bushes tax cut tilt in favor of the rich. Would that mean the fair tax would be a good thing then? Like I said, I'm no economist so I get lost with this stuff. But I would think the fair tax reform would be better than what we've had for the 46 years I've been alive.
fairtax is interesting, it very well could be better than the current tax system overall. it will take many years and a lot of analysis before it or something like it is put in place.
And fyi, i very well could be wrong about bush's tax cut. Maybe a higher % of tax cut does go to the rich, especially when including the new capital gains and investments cuts, but until its shown otherwise and said explicitly rather than just through jargony statements like i quoted in my last post, i'll go with the whitehouse figure.
http://www.ctj.org/pdf/allbushcut.pdf
"As a result of the three major tax cuts enacted at President Bush’s instigation in 2001, 2002 and 2003, taxes on the best-off one percent of Americans will fall by 17 percent by the end of this decade. For the remaining 99 percent of taxpayers, the average tax
reduction will be 5 percent.
The share of total federal taxes paid by the bestoff
one percent will fall from 23.7 percent to 21.3
percent in 2010 compared to prior law — a drop
of 2.4 percentage points. The top one percent is
the only income group with a substantial
reduction in its share of the total federal tax
burden."
That seems pretty explicit to me.
people should be able to determine for themselves how they spend the large majority of money they earn.
it's the fairest way and economically most efficient.
cjt.org is tough. most things on those sources and other cjt articles i've read i can logically break as to why they don't show what they imply they show. I can do it for one of those quotes, but not the other.
The first one is all about "the average tax reduction will be 5%" for everyone else. Tens of millions of people pay no federal income tax, and including these people as millions of 0% reductions in their average skews this number way way down. I don't know what it would be when not including these people, but it still makes it invalid.
The second quote is a lot tougher, its not as simple as I thought it was. I am trying to think of a way in which the richest 1% can get a lower (or even equal) % reduction in taxes than everyone else, yet still go down in overall share of federal taxes paid. I think it has to be possible, but I can't figure out how yet.
My biggest problem is this. Whitehouse.gv shows a very clear graph, that very clearly shows what its trying to say. It shows the % tax cut every income bracket will see. If that is wrong, why doesn't someone else just make a graph that shows otherwise? Why do they have to talk about "share of overall federal taxes paid" and all sorts of other nonsense, why not just show me the actual rates now and then?
I have no idea if this is what your talking about or even what you want. But I pulled it off the fair tax website.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...d99/q48pic.png
http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...14taxrail1.gif
http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...ax-justice.jpg
I'm going out of town for a week, so this is my last post on this topic. Also, I think I'm going to stop posting in political threads here--I don't care what you guys political views are, I'm here for the poker--need to remind myself of that sometimes. Have a good weekend, everyone...
Im pretty sure this is what you want:
"By maintaining unchanged the tax which weighs most heavily
on working people and cutting those taxes which affect the rich,
the Bush plan amounts to a redistribution of income from the
bottom to the top. According to an analysis by the Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), the top 1 percent of income
earners would get a bigger tax cut than the bottom 80 percent
of all taxpayers combined.
These upper income families currently pay 20 percent of all
federal taxes, but they would get 36 percent of the Bush tax
cut. This is under conditions where the top 1 percent has seen
their incomes grow by 40.4 percent over the past decade,
compared to a 5.2 percent increase for the bottom 90 percent."
from http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/mar2001/tax-m13.pdf
Ok, here's a question. Texas uses basically this same system instead of imposing state taxes. I'm in Oklahoma. When Keating was our governer, Bush tried to talk him into doing away with our state taxes and setting up the same system Texas had. Said it would help grow our economy and bring big business to our state. If I remember correctly we were on the verge of implementing it when Keatings term ended. When his term ended it seems so did this idea. Anyhow if Bush was so all for it on the state level, why wouldn't he be all for it on the Federal level? I would think the same principles would apply.
Thats why this is in the community forum. Have a good vacation.Quote:
Originally Posted by samsonite2100