For those of you not familiar with this visit www.fairtax.org. I am going to be volunteering locally in my district in Alabama. The best way to get this going is to get involved.
Comments:
Happy Phantom is just relaxing
Loopholes
to drive a mac truck through.
Think about what you’re saying. You wind up charging exorbident taxes on businesses who make or sell goods. Yet if a company purchases little or no goods (ie financial institutions, service providers, etc) they pay no tax.
Eliminating a tax on used goods will just change the definition for luxury items. If a porche has 3 miles on it, under current law, it is used. No tax? If a multi-millionaire buys a a mansion from another celebrity, no tax? That is crazy and only keeps money in the hands of the wealthy.
The entire point of a tax system is the redistribution of wealth. This is a good thing. If poor people aren’t buying much under the “fair tax” plan, sure, they are not being taxed. But they do not benefit from a redistribution. The wealthy conitnue to accumulate property and wealth without giving back to society.
Obviously, this is a huge conversation and I am only scratching the surface. I doubt I can change your mind from just a few paragraphs. I’m not saying I love the current tax system. But the “fair tax” seems far from fair to me.
As someone who has owned and operated a retail store, I think I know a thing or two about retail taxation. You are misrepresenting the facts. The fact is the retail store does not pay the sales tax, the consumer does. I never payed taxes on wholesale goods.
Your points seem a little short-sighted. Let me explain, a porche is not used if it has not had a previous owner irregardless of how many miles it has on it (this works the same as it ever has for any vehicle). As far as the mansion is concerned, ever hear of property tax? You are also implying that middle/poor individuals would never buy used houses.
You do not seem to understand the true nature of the fairtax, look up the prebate. This is how the poor get their “redistribution” just like the rest of us. If they spend it then good, if not then better. You say the wealthy “accumulate” property, this implies paying taxes because property is taxed. Real estate is still taxed on the local level and purchasing of new goods is still taxed. (Also, the majority of used homes are not bought by the wealthy, they are bought by ordinary people and fairtax makes used homes more affordable.) Do not even try to tell me that the wealthy will just buy everything used, try watching TV shows on the wealthy and you can not help but see the overpriced NEW crap that they love to purchase on a monthly, weekly, and daily basis. This “NEW” stuff also includes services provided to the “wealthy” by the way.
The fact is there is no such thing as a perfect system, but the only alternative on the table at this point is a flat tax which is how our current system started. Seriously, if you never had to have withholding taken out of your paycheck and got a prebate from the government every month, how much extra money would you have every month?
Let me give you an example:
You make $2000 a month, your estimated income tax liability as a single would be about $1950, not including Social Security, etc which amount to another 7.65%. Coming out to a grand total of $3,786 withheld annually from your paychecks before you ever see the money.
Now with the fairtax system, you get to keep this money in your paycheck, but you also receive a monthly Prebate, which comes out to about $2,196 annually. The prebate offsets the cost of goods based on the poverty level of your household size and everybody receives it (wealthy and poor alike, get it the “Fair” in FairTax). So under the FairTax you would get to decide the fate of $5,982 that you would have otherwise never have even seen under the current system. I do not know about you, but I trust my own judgement when it comes to my money much more than the federal government.
Bottomline: If you make $24,000 a year would you rather have $20,214 aftertax withholding to spend, or $29,982 before taxes to spend (the catch here, as you said before, is that you can buy used goods and not have to pay taxes on the purchase, which mostly poor people do anyway, so they would not only get out of paying taxes, but would also get the prebate that can supplement their low income). The economic implications of this are massive and could boost consumer spending to heights it has never achieved before.
In addition, consider the current Social Security collapse. Under our current system it is solely supported by the middle class working taxpayer. As you may well know, the percentage of retired persons is quickly outnumbering the working persons. The FairTax can alleviate this issue by using the national retail sales tax as its base of support therefore not just taxing workers, but also taxing tourists, non-workers, and any other group that does not pay income taxes.
I concede this system is not flawless, but it beats the heck out of what we have. The rich have so many loopholes as it is in the current system that they barely pay taxes. Fairtax just seeks to level the playing field and eliminate the loopholes that only the rich can take advantage of. (Example: if a rich person can buy a used car|house|etc. so can any other ordinary citizen). There are no alternative brackets or grandfather clauses to keep them out of paying taxes.
You are right, you will not change my mind, but I hope that I have at least enlightened you a little as to the finer details of the FairTax. Deferring taxes to the point-of-sale is the way to go, just think of it as a short-term 401k. Instead of having to wait until retirement, you can spend the pretax money any time you please.
Happy Phantom is just relaxing
You're right
I don’t know a lot about this issue. But that was my disclaimer to begin with. You have enlightened me a little, but I still think the system you propose is unfair (perhaps not as unfair as some of the current tax policies).
You’re right about the weatlhy buying things used and that middle income folks are buying more houses. But I have a real problem with basing a great deal of the tax burden on property taxes. That’s the problem with our school taxes. Poor communities get screwed from that. And I don’t see how it makes houses more affordable. I happen to think that low interest rates have made housing prices skyrocket (again, not an expert) so why wouldn’t lack of taxes make housing prices go up? For instance, my house has doubled in value in 5 years, but I couldn’t afford a better house unless I move down south or to a less comparable area. And it’s all because the mortgage monthly payments have gone down so people can afford to pay more, but not buy more for what they pay. But I digress.
I still don’t think I understand the prebate as you explain it. Sure, you give an example for a working class salary, but what would the scenario be for a corporate CEO who earns $1.5 million a year, owns a $1 million house and has a ton of stock? Or how about a person who lives solely off of buying and selling stocks?
I agree about Social Security, but there are other ways to fix it that do not involve a flat tax. Easy way to fix it, put back some of the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy.
The problem I always have with proposed plans is they make it seem good for poor or working class people, but these folks actually get the shaft compared to the wealthy.
I want to see a system that reduces the gap between rich and poor. I don’t see how this does that. I believe that rich people should pay a larger, if not, much larger percentage of their income in taxes. I don’t believe that a flat tax does this.
I respect your thorough answer though and appreciate that you did not call me a pinko commie or liberal nutcase. I may be, but they have such negative connotations :)
Happy Phantom is just relaxing
I understand
And you got me on that. I started out very critical and it’s not something I would want of one of my goals. But by my second entry, I was really getting curious and wanting to learn more about it, even if I may disagree in the end.
I hope you don’t take the entries the wrong way. I do like a good debate and I hope I do it respectfully. I apologize.
Point of taxes.
I beg to differ, the purpose of the tax system is to provide funding for the constitutionally mandated operations of the Government. In a socialist society it is to redistribute the wealth. Last time I look the top 5% of income earners pay more than 50% of the taxes in the US. Is that not enough? for crying out loud!
Happy Phantom is just relaxing
Traditionally
Traditionally, during times of war, taxes have been raised significantly.
For example, during WWI, the top tax bracket paid as much as 77% to the feds while the bottom paid only 6%. In 1944-45 the highest tax bracket paid 94% while the bottom paid 23%. During the 1950s and the Korean War, as much as 91% while the bottom paid 20%. These periods represented huge economic booms, despite what amount of taxes people paid. Back then, they actually financed their war in the now, instead of borrowing the money. Clearly, you’re not in the top tax bracket or you would know the top income earners in this country only pay 35% in federal income tax today. And you’re not at the bottom who pays 10%.
This is information from the fairly conservative Tax Foundation.
But that’s beside the point I was making. And I have since agreed a little with the original poster.
You are correct about the original intended purpose of the federal income tax.
I was stating what I think taxes should do. That is why I support social services. It’s nice to know, that if (heaven forfend) I lose my job or my ability to work, I will not be living on the streets. And for that, among other things like the national defense, paved, ploughed roads, public schools, and so on, I will glady pay taxes.
Got Papi? (Papacito) is headed back to Microsoft! :D
Questions ...
I have been reading about the FairTax proposal moderately intensively.
I am leaning toward supporting it, but I am not yet ready to come out whole-heartedly in favor of it. (I only heard about it for the first time last week—I have lived abroad for years.)
I have a couple questions about it. Perhaps some of you knowledgable proponants can address these questions. I would appreciate it if you would respond under the goal I created the other day, “Educate myself as to the Fair Tax proposal ….”.
My only doubts at this point are:
1) How would the proposal deal the the money I have already saved during my life and have already paid income taxes on?
Let me rephrase this question hypothetically: Mr. Jones earns income from 1990-2007. That income is taxed as are his capital gains on his savings (investments). He currently has all $500,000 his life savings in cash and stocks (no home).
In 2008, a national sales tax is implemented. Mr. Jones spend his income after 2008 and pays sales tax on the $500,000 he has saved.
That $500,000 has thusly been double-taxed.
What is the proposed solution to this cunundrum?
2. I see 1 Democrat on the list of FairTax supporters. The other dozens are Republicans.
What are the Democrats’ complaints about the FairTax proposal?
Are there any alternative tax proposals sponsored by Democrats?
Thank you for your help in understanding this issue more deeply.
- DaveFer
artosmor has gotten 5 cheers on this entry.
CharlMH cheered this 2 years ago
vavavoom cheered this 3 years ago
matthewdavid cheered this 3 years ago
larkabee cheered this 3 years ago


