Fair Tax

[JConner]

For those of you who understand the concept of the fair tax. Are you for or against it and why? Neal Boortz and John Linder are big supporters of this idea and being a very big fan of Boortz myself, i definately support this idea of getting rid of the IRS and only being taxed on what you SPEND, not what you MAKE.

[Echonova]

Werd.. Neal Boortz was like the abusive step-father I never had. But I learned a lot from listening to him.


BTW: I'll bet this gets moved. Too serious for WL.

[JConner]

Werd.. Neal Boortz was like the abusive step-father I never had. But I learned a lot from listening to him.


BTW: I'll bet this gets moved. Too serious for WL.

yea it probably will...but i figured it would get the most views here....this is def the only part of ia I participate in ;)

And yes Boortz is the man, and I have learned a lot from Clark Howard. I listen to both of them on a daily basis. Even though my friends think i'm weird.

[Friggintitsman]

Greatest thing about it is that all those fucking illegals will finally have to pay taxes like the rest of us.

[JConner]

Greatest think about it is that all those fucking illegals will finally have to pay taxes like the rest of us.

HELLLLLL YESSS! thank you for making that point. I forgot to include the illegals in my orig. post.

[redrumracer]

can you explain it a little better like how much would it increase. dont know much about it and dont really feel like searching

[Echonova]

Clark Howard is a cheap bastard.... I can understand saving money, but damn... I'll bet he rations toliet paper in his house.... That he took from the hotel..... That he saved a $1.99 on by staying in the ghetto.... Plus it was on the bus line so he didn't have rent a car....

[Echonova]

can you explain it a little better like how much would it increase. dont know much about it and dont really feel like searchingYou pay, we all get off scott-free.

[JConner]

can you explain it a little better like how much would it increase. dont know much about it and dont really feel like searching

Basically, instead of paying an income tax, you will pay 23% tax on whatever you PURCHASE. So yes, a 100,000 house will cost you 123,000 but you wont have to pay income taxes of 33% (yes that is the top income bracket) or a few % less. So no more IRS and that bullshit, plus illegal's are forced to participate.

So if you go to the store and spend $1, it will cost you $1.23, it sounds bad but if you read Neal Boortz's book it makes sense.

[JConner]

Clark Howard is a cheap bastard.... I can understand saving money, but damn... I'll bet he rations toliet paper in his house.... That he took from the hotel..... That he saved a $1.99 on by staying in the ghetto.... Plus it was on the bus line so he didn't have rent a car....

yea, he definately is a cheap bastard, but he's also a rich bastard.

I view him the same way i do my step-dad. My stepdad is the VP of St. Mary's Medical Center making 500k a year and drives a 99 Toyota Camry with 160,xxx miles on it because it still runs and he dosen't see the need to spend money on a new car when the one he has runs fine.

[redrumracer]

does it affect any other taxes like property taxes.

[Echonova]

yea, he definately is a cheap bastard, but he's also a rich bastard.

I view him the same way i do my step-dad. My stepdad is the VP of St. Mary's Medical Center making 500k a year and drives a 99 Toyota Camry with 160,xxx miles on it because it still runs and he dosen't see the need to spend money on a new car when the one he has runs fine.Ah, my pops is the same way.... F'ing old people.. Wait I'm old..:cry:

[Friggintitsman]

Fairtax.org has all the details. If this would happen our economy would be the shit.

[JConner]

does it affect any other taxes like property taxes.

I don't believe it would do away with property taxes (because they are state and local, not federal taxes). But then again I am not an expert.

Everyone should order this book...

http://www.amazon.com/Fair-Tax-Book-Saying-Goodbye/dp/0060875496/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/103-2293903-8727050?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188621813&sr=8-2

[Friggintitsman]

does it affect any other taxes like property taxes.

All other taxes would be ablolished

[Leadfoot_mf]

repost.

[JConner]

Fairtax.org has all the details. If this would happen our economy would be the shit.

amen. it would give the power back to the people and less to the govt. making our economy grow........ But the f'n democrats are stopping the process, and trying to put an end to republican/liberal talk radio hosts, whom are the main supporters of this idea.

[JConner]

repost.]


thankfully, i have a life and don't monitor IA 24/7 so my basic search proves otherwise.

[quickdodge®]

yea it probably will...but i figured it would get the most views here....this is def the only part of ia I participate in ;)

Maybe you should have figured that there is a lready a goddamn thread about this very same topic in the right goddamn section. Later, QD.

[David88vert]

The Bahamas have "fair tax". The way it works is you have 2 taxes. Sales taxes, and import taxes. Import taxes are 75% of the price of the import, so if you buy a car for $10K, you really pay $17.5K. And sales taxes are usually about 35%, not 23%. What happens is that most people go back to a bartering system, and the economy moves very slowly (compared to what we have here).

For example, in the Bahmas, most people don't buy a house, they buy a lot of land (obviously costs a lot less, so less taxes), then they trade out services to get the slab poured, then the blocks set, etc. It usually takes them years to get the house done.

When looking at changing an economic system, you have to look at other systems and see the ramifications that the choices have. Boortz does NOT have experience in that, so I would NOT listen to him on this idea.

Our country would be inserious trouble with out massive amount of debt IF the economy was slowed down significantly as it would be through the changing of our current tax process. Our trade deficit would put us into the status of a bankrupt government, similar to Argentina.

[Leadfoot_mf]

The Bahamas have "fair tax". The way it works is you have 2 taxes. Sales taxes, and import taxes. Import taxes are 75% of the price of the import, so if you buy a car for $10K, you really pay $17.5K. And sales taxes are usually about 35%, not 23%. What happens is that most people go back to a bartering system, and the economy moves very slowly (compared to what we have here).

For example, in the Bahmas, most people don't buy a house, they buy a lot of land (obviously costs a lot less, so less taxes), then they trade out services to get the slab poured, then the blocks set, etc. It usually takes them years to get the house done.

When looking at changing an economic system, you have to look at other systems and see the ramifications that the choices have. Boortz does NOT have experience in that, so I would NOT listen to him on this idea.

Our country would be inserious trouble with out massive amount of debt IF the economy was slowed down significantly as it would be through the changing of our current tax process. Our trade deficit would put us into the status of a bankrupt government, similar to Argentina.

wow really? go read the book before u shell out disinformation.

[Julio]

Greatest thing about it is that all those fucking illegals will finally have to pay taxes like the rest of us.



As much as Im a supporter of fairtax.... This must be the dumbest shit i ever heard.

Illegals pay taxes now... skipy.

Do you know how much money the IRS keeps every year due to illegals working under different names? MILLIONS AND MILLIONS...Even though it was all money earned illegally, they still had to bust there ass and WORK for it.

Do you think they dont buy nothing in this country? They may spend more money then you do... im willing to bet..

They still have to pay taxes on shit they buy on a day to day basis..... :screwy:

[SL65AMG]

The Bahamas have "fair tax". The way it works is you have 2 taxes. Sales taxes, and import taxes. Import taxes are 75% of the price of the import, so if you buy a car for $10K, you really pay $17.5K. And sales taxes are usually about 35%, not 23%. What happens is that most people go back to a bartering system, and the economy moves very slowly (compared to what we have here).

For example, in the Bahmas, most people don't buy a house, they buy a lot of land (obviously costs a lot less, so less taxes), then they trade out services to get the slab poured, then the blocks set, etc. It usually takes them years to get the house done.

When looking at changing an economic system, you have to look at other systems and see the ramifications that the choices have. Boortz does NOT have experience in that, so I would NOT listen to him on this idea.

Our country would be inserious trouble with out massive amount of debt IF the economy was slowed down significantly as it would be through the changing of our current tax process. Our trade deficit would put us into the status of a bankrupt government, similar to Argentina.

the damn europeans changed their entire goddamn currency, so why couldnt we change the way we are taxed..... missionary to doggy style....

why in the hell do you think we kicked Britain's ass in the first place.

our economy would skyrocket if this tax was put into effect. AND you would ONLY pay taxes on NEW goods. if its used then its not taxable because the tax for that item has already been collected. UNLIKE the way it is now.... you ate taxed 7 different ways on the same fucking thing.

FUCK THE IRS!!!!! its time to return the favor, ill even give em some ky. bitches

[d993s]

How about NO TAX???
Anyone care to enlighten those who think the IRS is a legitimate taxer, why it was introduced and why it hasn't yet been done away with? (I don't have the patience)

Most people don't know that with the amount of fuel tax we pay, there's more than enough to pay for new roads, etc, (where we usually see the "your tax dollars at work" bullshit claim).

[SL65AMG]

for there to be no tax the government would have to "officially" become a business. taxes suck but the fair tax would make it a little less shitty

[TIGERJC]

taxes now > Fair tax. People should put more effort into making the government to spend our tax dollars wisely.

[David88vert]

wow really? go read the book before u shell out disinformation.

Have you been there? I have and have seen it in action. I've also seen how different taxes structures work in quite a few countries - from actually experiencing it. Flat tax structures based on consumer spending encourage bartering - plain and simple. The biggest advantage IMO is that corporate taxes SHOULD be eliminated - thus moving more companies HEADQUARTERS to the US - but not necessarily their manufacturing.


SL65AMG, do you really think that our government wouldn't screw up any transition to another tax platform? How do you think the economy would skyrocket? Do you really think that they will just drop income tax as a source of revenue? Why would they? They would implement this tax plan like many others (toll roads, specialty taxes), and then never stop the income tax - just lower the amount collected a little bit initially. It is a common tactic of our government. All we would be doing is getting taxed more.

Hell, Georgians can't even get the state to stop the toll on 400. You do realize that it should have already stopped, right?

[Echonova]

As much as Im a supporter of fairtax.... This must be the dumbest shit i ever heard.

Illegals pay taxes now... skipy.

Do you know how much money the IRS keeps every year due to illegals working under different names? MILLIONS AND MILLIONS...Even though it was all money earned illegally, they still had to bust there ass and WORK for it.

Do you think they dont buy nothing in this country? They may spend more money then you do... im willing to bet..

They still have to pay taxes on shit they buy on a day to day basis..... :screwy:
So do we, Skippy..... While the American citizen (who plays by the rules) will do a job for $11.50/hr and illegal will do for $8.50. Why?? Because the government isn't in his paycheck. No FICA, state tax, social security, no insurance, nothing and why should they? We make it too easy for them. Our system is designed to cater to them. Can I walk in a hospital and get healthcare for free? No. Why? Because my social security number isn't 777-77-7777. Do illegals pay tax? Sure, on some level they do. Do they pay enough to carry the burden they put on our health, welfare, prison and school systems? Not even close.

[JConner]

So do we, Skippy..... While the American citizen (who plays by the rules) will do a job for $11.50/hr and illegal will do for $8.50. Why?? Because the government isn't in his paycheck. No FICA, state tax, social security, no insurance, nothing and why should they? We make it too easy for them. Our system is designed to cater to them. Can I walk in a hospital and get healthcare for free? No. Why? Because my social security number isn't 777-77-7777. Do illegals pay tax? Sure, on some level they do. Do they pay enough to carry the burden they put on our health, welfare, prison and school systems? Not even close.

thank you! + as many as my "noob" ass can give you (even though i've been on this site since it started under diff. usernames since i can't remember passwords)

and fuck Hitlary Clinton with the socialized medicine.

[Fast Shadow]

As much as Im a supporter of fairtax.... This must be the dumbest shit i ever heard.

Illegals pay taxes now... skipy.

Do you know how much money the IRS keeps every year due to illegals working under different names? MILLIONS AND MILLIONS...Even though it was all money earned illegally, they still had to bust there ass and WORK for it.

Do you think they dont buy nothing in this country? They may spend more money then you do... im willing to bet..

They still have to pay taxes on shit they buy on a day to day basis..... :screwy:

No one really knows how many illegals pay taxes because so many employers pay them under the table, it's all guesswork. Federal payroll taxes are collected if an illegal happens to be on the books (with a fake SS#), but the "fact" that this is how it is for most illegals is made up by liberals. Assumptions are made about how many illegals are paying taxes vs. being under the table, that's it. The Fair Tax will capture money from the off the books workers, too. And they won't get a prebate since they're here illegally - so maybe they'll GTFO.

[Leadfoot_mf]

No one really knows how many illegals pay taxes because so many employers pay them under the table, it's all guesswork. Federal payroll taxes are collected if an illegal happens to be on the books (with a fake SS#), but the "fact" that this is how it is for most illegals is made up by liberals. Assumptions are made about how many illegals are paying taxes vs. being under the table, that's it. The Fair Tax will capture money from the off the books workers, too. And they won't get a prebate since they're here illegally - so maybe they'll GTFO.

plus we would collect taxes from tourists as well.

[Fast Shadow]

plus we would collect taxes from tourists as well.

That's true, right now states collect money from tourists in the form of bed taxes at hotels, Florida gets a lot of revenue from that. People in the tourism industry may worry that their business will decline because a national sales tax would turn off visitors from other countries. But right now the dollar is so weak against other currencies that even with a nat'l sales tax it would still be very cheap for foreign tourists.

[JConner]

That's true, right now states collect money from tourists in the form of bed taxes at hotels, Florida gets a lot of revenue from that. People in the tourism industry may worry that their business will decline because a national sales tax would turn off visitors from other countries. But right now the dollar is so weak against other currencies that even with a nat'l sales tax it would still be very cheap for foreign tourists.

never thought about the tourist aspect of it. Boortz has also never said anything about the effect on tourism, maybe i will hit redial 197103743 times until I get through to the radio station tomorrow and ask him :lmfao:
edit: Tuesday since tomorrow is Labor Day

[JDMjoe]

What a heavy debate, im undecided :thinking:

[Fast Shadow]

I don't think it will hurt the tourism industry at all. And it opens up a huge new line of revenue, I really hope the Fair Tax can be enacted.

[ISAtlanta300]

^^ I think it will, if a disney ticket suddenly costs $ 84 + 23% tax........

[Fast Shadow]

Everything will cost more because of the tax, but we'll have more money in our pockets because there will no longer be federal income tax. It's revenue neutral, meaning it doesn't change the amount of money the gov't brings in. So for tourists who live in the USA nothing changes. For tourists from out of the USA they'll be paying more. But the dollar is so weak vs. the euro, the pound and every other currency that it will hardly make a difference to them - vacationing in the USA is ridiculously cheap for them.

[Demsum]

Since large companies won't have to pay as many taxes, won't the prices of most things drop a little to offset the taxes we are charged?

[Fast Shadow]

That's the theory. I have a hard time believing it, though. That's my one real problem w/ the fair tax. It assumes that companies won't take advantage of an opportunity to increase their profits.

[Leadfoot_mf]

That's the theory. I have a hard time believing it, though. That's my one real problem w/ the fair tax. It assumes that companies won't take advantage of an opportunity to increase their profits.
but with competition they really wouldn't be able to. the invisible hand would keep it status quo. boortz has talked about the tourism aspect as well.

people read the book. also read this book somebody's got to say it.

[David88vert]

Alright, so whose ready to pay 23% more for gas? Do you really think that they will repeal those taxes? And if they do, where will the subsidies that we currently enjoy will come from? Get ready to pay more $$$ for gas than other countries? Can you say $10/gallon in the near future?

Here are some other articles that you might want to read and consider BEFORE casting your vote for a new tax collection system.


http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/06/pf/taxes/consumptiontax_0510/
Important Note: Wages will have to go down to compensate.
Important Quote: "It is practically and logically impossible for the government be collecting the same amount of money as before and have everyone suddenly be better off," says Daniel Shaviro, a tax law professor at New York University.


http://www.mises.org/story/1814
Important Note: The national retail sales tax rate under the FairTax plan is 23 percent. That is on top of state sales taxes that are currently collected by forty-five states. That is on top of the sales tax that many cities and counties also collect. That is on top of the special taxes that exist on hotel rooms in most areas of the country. I suppose that a national retail sales tax would also apply to gasoline. There is no mention of the federal gas tax anywhere in the Fair Tax Act of 2005. No list of taxes that are supposed to be eliminated under the FairTax includes the federal gas tax.
Important Quote: There shall be in the Department of the Treasury a Sales Tax Bureau to administer the national sales tax in those States where it is required pursuant to section 404, and to discharge other Federal duties and powers relating to the national sales tax (including those required by sections 402, 403, and 405). The Office of Revenue Allocation shall be within the Sales Tax Bureau.
Cliff Notes: Fair Tax advocates call for the IRS to remain.

http://www.mises.org/story/1975
Important Note: The taxes currently imposed by the states would be unaffected by the FairTax Plan. Thus, states that impose a state income tax or a state sales tax would continue to collect those taxes.
Important Quote: The FairTax will basically do away with not-for-profit entities.
Important Quote: Two examples of federal taxes that will still be with us under the FairTax are the excise tax on gasoline and the various taxes that one pays when purchasing an airline ticket. There is no mention of the federal gas tax anywhere in the Fair Tax Act of 2005. No list of taxes that are supposed to be eliminated under the FairTax includes the federal gas tax, which adds 18.4 cents to the price of a gallon of gas. So under the FairTax, we would have added to each gallon of gas federal excise tax, state excise tax, and federal sales tax. This is just the minimum. The states could also begin applying their sales tax to gasoline. A recent airline ticket I purchased had added to its price a federal excise tax of $15.28, a federal segment tax of $12.80, and a September 11th security fee of $10.00. And what about federal taxes on tobacco and alcohol? The FairTax will merely replace one visible tax with another while leaving intact the invisible ones.


Again, can you really trust Congress to stop collecting other taxes? Can you expect them to curb spending? Can you expect them to not raise the sales tax every year?

Is anyone here really that gullible to believe that Congress could pull this off correctly?

Also, under the current system, a person making $6000/yr (under the poverty level) pays NO income tax, and pays $420/yr in sales taxes if they spend all of their money. Under the Fair Tax, they would spend AT LEAST $1380 in sales taxes. Basically, you are increasing taxes on the poor. How are they supposed to be able to save and improve their lives? Even with the prebate, they will pay more initially than they currently do. And for those that live on a week-to-week check, life will be more difficult when inflation rises.

[Echonova]

Alright, so whose ready to pay 23% more for gas? Do you really think that they will repeal those taxes? And if they do, where will the subsidies that we currently enjoy will come from? Get ready to pay more $$$ for gas than other countries? Can you say $10/gallon in the near future?
We would only pay that much for gas thanks to the unholy alliance between George Bush and Big Oil. Halliburton really controls the price of gas. I see no problems with $10/gal. After all Europe has been paying high gas prices for a long time and it's time we paid our fair share.

[StupidBikerBoy]

you wont have to pay income taxes of 33% (yes that is the top income bracket)

I hate the fact that Im in the highest bracket, while the rich get away with less than 1% taxes. They should pay the same as all of us, if not more.

Im all for the fair tax, or atleast a major reform that would have higher brckets paying an equal % as the others.

As for the IRS, FUCK EM. they are after me for some supposed income from 2001. Thay want SIXTY FUCKEN PERCENT of it paid to them. WTMOTHERF?

Penalties and interest???? Why dont we get penalties and interest for the WHOLE YEAR they hold from us each year?????

Our current tax system is far from fair, and needs to be overhauled now.

[StupidBikerBoy]

Alright, so whose ready to pay 23% more for gas? Do you really think that they will repeal those taxes? And if they do, where will the subsidies that we currently enjoy will come from? Get ready to pay more $$$ for gas than other countries? Can you say $10/gallon in the near future?


It wouldnt be 23% more of what it is now, but a total of 23% taxes on the current price of gas before the current taxes. So it would be less

[David88vert]

It wouldnt be 23% more of what it is now, but a total of 23% taxes on the current price of gas before the current taxes. So it would be less


That is not true. There is no proviosion in the Fair Tax proposal to repeal the current taxes levied. So you would add 23% onto the cost of fuel. Read the proposal, it leaves a lot out of its explainations, PLUS state taxes would NOT be repealed at any point under the proposal.

For that matter, neither would state income taxes. You still would be paying more for fuel, tobacco, and alcohol - any way that you try to slice it under the current proposal.

[AnthonyF]

for it. i have to listen to Boortz all morning. pretty entertaining.

[mikesEK]

i dunno much about it.....but i like the way it sounds....does it make the Mexicans that get paid under the table pay more taxes?,cuz it seem like all you hear about is the Mexicans and other illeagals NOT paying as much taxes as the rest of us

[Rican219]

Tax Prostitution!!

[Sledlude]

The Bahamas have "fair tax". The way it works is you have 2 taxes. Sales taxes, and import taxes. Import taxes are 75% of the price of the import, so if you buy a car for $10K, you really pay $17.5K. And sales taxes are usually about 35%, not 23%. What happens is that most people go back to a bartering system, and the economy moves very slowly (compared to what we have here).

For example, in the Bahmas, most people don't buy a house, they buy a lot of land (obviously costs a lot less, so less taxes), then they trade out services to get the slab poured, then the blocks set, etc. It usually takes them years to get the house done.

When looking at changing an economic system, you have to look at other systems and see the ramifications that the choices have. Boortz does NOT have experience in that, so I would NOT listen to him on this idea.

Our country would be inserious trouble with out massive amount of debt IF the economy was slowed down significantly as it would be through the changing of our current tax process. Our trade deficit would put us into the status of a bankrupt government, similar to Argentina.

What an informed post... especially post #41. It seems you are the only poster in the thread who knows what's up. While I'm not getting involved in this debate, I have always been wary of the fair tax, figuring that it would indeed slow the economy while hurting the poor. Sure, the idea of no income tax *sounds* nice, but a working model of an idea often yields unexpected results.

And for the dude that said "read the book before you shell out disinformation", Neal Boortz is not the authority on anything economics, or anything at all for that matter. I consider myself a pretty liberal person but still think Boortz is off his fucking rocker with some of the mess he talks. He is a radio host, not a policy maker, for a reason: he can piss people off with his wacked out ideas which make for good radio.

[JConner]

for it. i have to listen to Boortz all morning. pretty entertaining.

Boortz is awesome, I don't HAVE to listen to him but i choose to. I bet i'm one of the only 21 year old students who roll up to campus listning to Boortz/Clark on 750am :goodjob:

My mom brought up a good point earlier today when I was having this discussion with her;

Think about the many people who are on welfare and buy grocieries, etc.. with foodstamps, this means that the wealthy tax payers will be paying the hiked sales tax for these dumbass drop-outs. (yes i know that is how it is now, but it will cost even more)

[Echonova]

I consider myself a pretty liberal person You must...


i live my life one license suspension at a time-- and for that 6 months or more, i still drive. Because the laws that everyone else follows, don't apply to you.

[Sledlude]

yes... that is my sig... its funny, its something QD came up with a while back... as a matter of fact, i DO have a license, i drive legally, but the sig is funny to me... but really- what's that got to do with fair tax? dont be pissed just because someone disagrees with you.

what the fucks up with IA... ive been gone for a lil while, come back and everyone has their panties in a wad.

[Echonova]

yes... that is my sig... its funny, its something QD came up with a while back... as a matter of fact, i DO have a license, i drive legally, but the sig is funny to me... but really- what's that got to do with fair tax? dont be pissed just because someone disagrees with you.

what the fucks up with IA... ive been gone for a lil while, come back and everyone has their panties in a wad.LOL, it has nothing to do with the Fair Tax. I just found it funny, not pissed at all. While I do think the Fair Tax is a good idea.... It will never happen, so it's all a moot point anyway.

[Jaimecbr900]

There are many many inconsistencies to argument against a Fair Tax that I'm not sure where to begin.

I will begin however with the mention of the fact that everyone would receive 100% of their pay vs 70-75% as we all are now. There's your 23% right there already.

I will also mention what the naysayers fail to mention that the proposal includes a provision for the GOV'T to cut EVERYONE checks for the ESSENTIALS that they will need to SURVIVE. In other words, the ole "poor people will suffer" argument doesn't hold water because they will get a credit check each month for NECESSITIES such as food and medicine in order to MAINTAIN their current state. So again, you get 100% of your money, no giving the gov't an automatic 20-30%, and the GOV'T pays YOU for the essential necessities such as food and medicine. How much exactly is it that all of us get for food and medicine NOW????? :thinking: .......While they STILL GET 30% of our income?????:thinking:

I also will mention that there are MILLIONS of people that pay ZERO taxes NOW. I'll repeat that for those that weren't paying attention.......THERE ARE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE THAT PAY ZERO TAXES NOW, THAT WILL BE PAYING UNDER THE PROPOSED FAIR TAX. Now, explain or refute how THAT tid bit alone will not generate MORE revenue to run this country. So, people that NOW skirt around PAYING ANYTHING (all of which USE atleast one and often times many of the services that are FUNDED by TAX DOLLARS NOW) will have NO WAY of eluding payment under the FAIR TAX. How can anyone with any common sense not see that would generate BILLIONS of dollars that we DON'T even see NOW. It no longer will matter if you get paid "on the books" or "under the table". Who cares? You WILL pay YOUR FAIR share when you SPEND the money. Don't spend??....then KEEP all your money. What's wrong with that?

The only people that oppose the Fair Tax are usually the people that either A: don't understand it, B: Think they understand it, but really don't, or C: Don't want their perceived benefits "gone" .

The Fair Tax proposal gives PEOPLE more power over the GOV'T again. How? By allowing the PEOPLE to dictate how much of their hard earned pay goes back to the GOV'T. How? Easy. PEOPLE will be in far more control of their GOV'T, much as they control the Economy. When things are going good, then people will SPEND their money (i.e. revenue for the GOV'T). When they're not so good, then you will hoard your money (i.e. less revenue for the GOV'T.....i.e. they better get their stuff together and MAKE YOU HAPPY AGAIN so you can start spending money so they can get their money so we can start the whole ferris wheel again). Follow that? Think about it. It's a kind of checks and balances that this country was founded on. If the GOV'T, who is representing you, doesn't do a good job......you don't give them YOUR money......How sweet is that? You work, you keep the bulk of your money for YOURSELF for when YOU feel like spending it on the things YOU feel like spending thereby indirectly funding the GOV'T. So WHO is control now????;) Why do you think that the CURRENT GOV'T is NOT jumping all over this???;) It shrinks HUGE GOV'T agencies like the IRS. They would no longer be needed. How much savings is in just that??? ;)

People are quick to say, "23% OMG that's high", when they don't even stop to think how much they pay NOW......:lmfao:


I'll damn sure take 23% over what I'm paying NOW. Add up and see how much YOU are paying now. Better yet, look at your W2 from last year. Think about it using simplified math terms. Would you rather PAY 30% of your check or get the whole thing and pay 23% on the things YOU CHOOSE to buy for YOURSELF????? What exactly are you GETTING for your 30% NOW????? I'm not getting squat, are you? ;)

[lilmanx01]

i dont know if i hit for it against it... haha i clicked and it said already voted. but im AGAINST IT. its not worth it...think about it. look at minimum wage... no matter how many of us want it to go up or not, its going to go up. now look at fair tax... once it starts off at i duno lets say 10% whether you want it to or not its going to go up... maybe in a year maybe in 10.. but whose to stop it from going up to 50%?! or 200%?!

[JConner]

amen jamie

[Leadfoot_mf]

i dont know if i hit for it against it... haha i clicked and it said already voted. but im AGAINST IT. its not worth it...think about it. look at minimum wage... no matter how many of us want it to go up or not, its going to go up. now look at fair tax... once it starts off at i duno lets say 10% whether you want it to or not its going to go up... maybe in a year maybe in 10.. but whose to stop it from going up to 50%?! or 200%?!

your an idiot please if u are able to vote do the country a favor and don't

[Leadfoot_mf]

There are many many inconsistencies to argument against a Fair Tax that I'm not sure where to begin.

I will begin however with the mention of the fact that everyone would receive 100% of their pay vs 70-75% as we all are now. There's your 23% right there already.

I will also mention what the naysayers fail to mention that the proposal includes a provision for the GOV'T to cut EVERYONE checks for the ESSENTIALS that they will need to SURVIVE. In other words, the ole "poor people will suffer" argument doesn't hold water because they will get a credit check each month for NECESSITIES such as food and medicine in order to MAINTAIN their current state. So again, you get 100% of your money, no giving the gov't an automatic 20-30%, and the GOV'T pays YOU for the essential necessities such as food and medicine. How much exactly is it that all of us get for food and medicine NOW????? :thinking: .......While they STILL GET 30% of our income?????:thinking:

I also will mention that there are MILLIONS of people that pay ZERO taxes NOW. I'll repeat that for those that weren't paying attention.......THERE ARE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE THAT PAY ZERO TAXES NOW, THAT WILL BE PAYING UNDER THE PROPOSED FAIR TAX. Now, explain or refute how THAT tid bit alone will not generate MORE revenue to run this country. So, people that NOW skirt around PAYING ANYTHING (all of which USE atleast one and often times many of the services that are FUNDED by TAX DOLLARS NOW) will have NO WAY of eluding payment under the FAIR TAX. How can anyone with any common sense not see that would generate BILLIONS of dollars that we DON'T even see NOW. It no longer will matter if you get paid "on the books" or "under the table". Who cares? You WILL pay YOUR FAIR share when you SPEND the money. Don't spend??....then KEEP all your money. What's wrong with that?

The only people that oppose the Fair Tax are usually the people that either A: don't understand it, B: Think they understand it, but really don't, or C: Don't want their perceived benefits "gone" .

The Fair Tax proposal gives PEOPLE more power over the GOV'T again. How? By allowing the PEOPLE to dictate how much of their hard earned pay goes back to the GOV'T. How? Easy. PEOPLE will be in far more control of their GOV'T, much as they control the Economy. When things are going good, then people will SPEND their money (i.e. revenue for the GOV'T). When they're not so good, then you will hoard your money (i.e. less revenue for the GOV'T.....i.e. they better get their stuff together and MAKE YOU HAPPY AGAIN so you can start spending money so they can get their money so we can start the whole ferris wheel again). Follow that? Think about it. It's a kind of checks and balances that this country was founded on. If the GOV'T, who is representing you, doesn't do a good job......you don't give them YOUR money......How sweet is that? You work, you keep the bulk of your money for YOURSELF for when YOU feel like spending it on the things YOU feel like spending thereby indirectly funding the GOV'T. So WHO is control now????;) Why do you think that the CURRENT GOV'T is NOT jumping all over this???;) It shrinks HUGE GOV'T agencies like the IRS. They would no longer be needed. How much savings is in just that??? ;)

People are quick to say, "23% OMG that's high", when they don't even stop to think how much they pay NOW......:lmfao:


I'll damn sure take 23% over what I'm paying NOW. Add up and see how much YOU are paying now. Better yet, look at your W2 from last year. Think about it using simplified math terms. Would you rather PAY 30% of your check or get the whole thing and pay 23% on the things YOU CHOOSE to buy for YOURSELF????? What exactly are you GETTING for your 30% NOW????? I'm not getting squat, are you? ;)

thank you. bump for intelligence.

[David88vert]

Do you guys really think that it will save you money? Think about this. In order for the government to operate, they will need the SAME amount that they needed before. So it will not be lowering taxes, just changing who and where they will collect from.

Now if you are rich, it's simple, live in the US, buy your stuff from overseas, and have it shipped over - no taxes then for the rich, unless you implement some sort of import tax.

The poor get subsidized, so "no" real tax for them (due to "prebate").

Now who is left to collect the money from? The people that have enough not to get subsidized, but aren't rich or technically savy - i.e. the middle class.

All you are accomplishing is squeezing out a bigger divide between the haves and have nots.

The answer is not changing of the way that taxes are collected - you have to change the amounts. In order to do that, you have to have a government that controls its spending, and we definately don't have that. Find a way to hold the government accountable for the amount that it spends - then you will lower taxes.

As Leadfoot has mentioned - read the book - all of it. Try the chapter, "Questions and Objections". Boortz even says that it will have to be about 30%, rather than 23%. That's a big difference. At under 31%, the budget will not be met in 10 years, unless there were increases. The math doesn't lie.

Jaime, the federal gas tax is 18.4 cents/gallon. The Fair Tax act does not repeal that set of taxes. So now you would pay 23% more on top of the current federal tax, and then state taxes on that (another 15 cents/gallon here in GA). So if you paid $3.00 including taxes before, you would pay 3.69 afterwards. Another big difference.


Now for the real deal. Guess what, that whole promise of prices dropping (removal of embedded taxes), and you getting your full salary - it isn't going to happen. If you get paid $50K, and $10K is taken out, do you think that the company can lower it's prices if you get the whole $50K? Of course not. They are paying out the same amount. The only way it would work is if you got $40K - not $50K - a 20% drop. Boortz knows this and Harvard economist Dale Jorgenson admitted it when questioned.

Don't get me wrong - I LOVE the IDEA of a Fair Tax, but it is going to need a lot more work polishing out the problems BEFORE it could be implemented. I can't support it until then. After the big problems are worked out and solved, then I would reconsider it.

[ISAtlanta300]

The Fair Tax proposal gives PEOPLE more power over the GOV'T again. How? By allowing the PEOPLE to dictate how much of their hard earned pay goes back to the GOV'T. How? Easy. PEOPLE will be in far more control of their GOV'T, much as they control the Economy. When things are going good, then people will SPEND their money (i.e. revenue for the GOV'T). When they're not so good, then you will hoard your money (i.e. less revenue for the GOV'T.....i.e. they better get their stuff together and MAKE YOU HAPPY AGAIN so you can start spending money so they can get their money so we can start the whole ferris wheel again). Follow that? Think about it. It's a kind of checks and balances that this country was founded on. If the GOV'T, who is representing you, doesn't do a good job......you don't give them YOUR money......How sweet is that? You work, you keep the bulk of your money for YOURSELF for when YOU feel like spending it on the things YOU feel like spending thereby indirectly funding the GOV'T. So WHO is control now????;)

Maybe you're right, but i don't think the government would give two lick to make YOU happy again so that you can start spending.. you would STILL have to clothe your back, pay your shelter, fill your gas tank, fill your belly, drink your water, pay your light, gas etc etc. whether things are good or not... and the government will still get taxes from that. Besides, you would probably hurt retail businesses first. It's not like you can just sit on your pile of money and hoard it and not spend a penny. for example, it's not like the increased gas prices nowadays have made many people drive that much less......

[Jaimecbr900]

David, you're just repeating the exact same thing that Gale has been saying for years, yet it doesn't ever pan out. He's an economist that predicts things, yet none of them ever happen. Kinda like calling all of us weather forecasters. We can all look outside right now and "know" it's not going to rain, how's that a forecast though?

Look, the water is being muddied up by all these economists that suddenly see the momentum swinging the way to where THEY are no longer needed. THEY depend on the IRS still staying alive to continue to thrive, so why would they say anything positive about a proposal that would phase out their profession??? Think about it.

Let me get you to think about something else:

What's been a buzz word in the last 5-10 years??? OUTSOURCING. Why does outsourcing work? Because in the countries where U.S. BASED COMPANIES send that work to be done there are BIG tax advantages to doing so. From cheap land to the most expensive cost ANY company has......LABOR. Labor costs are the biggest expense any company has that is neither replenishable nor easily expandible. From straight up hourly wages to the truly more expensive insurance and TAXES, the corporate world loses BILLIONS to Labor each and every year. Just as one example, every reputable employer now pays between 3-10% of every single dollar paid to TAXES and Labor related expenses. Remember FICA? Remember Unemployment? Remember benefits/insurance?

Now, offer those BIG companies that employ thousands and thousands of OVERSEAS people to do jobs AMERICANS can and are willing to do INCENTIVES, like NO longer having to PAY employee TAXES which also reduces the need for ultra expensive payroll costs that have to keep up and manage those TAXES, and guess how many will no longer see the benefits of OUTSOURCING. You know who is one of the biggest opponents of the Fair Tax??? Europe and Asia. Guess why? Because they SEE the writing on the wall. They KNOW that if big corporations, which SELL most of their goods here and are BASED out of the U.S. yet outsource their labor force to save money in the aforementioned ways, realize they can now save money by keeping their labor force HERE......What do you think will be their choice?.....Maintain expensive call centers and warehouse overseas or bring all of that commerce back home where it belonged in the first place and would have always been were it not for the incredible tax burden that exists today. So in one swift move you killed two big birds with one stone. Added thousands of jobs to the AMERICAN labor force AND gave incredible incentives via real bonafide in their pockets savings to not only companies already based HERE but you also attract brand new companies that have antiquated tax systems in their own countries to move here. Hmmmmm, how sweet would that be? Why do you think there are certain very specific areas in the world where certain business sectors are based??? Because they have found SAVINGS to basing their operations there, right? Why can't that attractive place to do business be the good ole U.S.A.? It can and it will IF we make it favorable for businesses to come here. The Fair Tax will do that in a big way.

BTW, we haven't even begun to discuss the embedded tax that we all pay to absorb not only the crazy costs mentioned above, but many many others that drive prices to where they are now. So if you take away the NEED to build in a PITA tax, supply and demand kicks in and drives prices DOWN rather than up. Competition in a free market society will always eventually drive prices to where they need to be. Look at cell phones, laptops, and ISP's. A few short years ago, not only did they suck but they were expensive. Competition, along with other variables, drove the prices down to the levels they are today and will continue to be. Soon we'll no longer need landlines to do the same things that had us tethered years ago. Same thing will happen with products with the Fair Tax. Yes initially products will not go super low, but when competition catches up they will have no choice. Just as the $1000 brick cell phones came down to earth, bread will not be able to sold for $10/loaf for long either.

[Jaimecbr900]

Two things to remember:


1. How much more could you do with a sudden 30% pay INCREASE, especially if that increase allows you to KEEP the money if you can CONTROL your spending YOURSELF????

2. How much more money do you think will be collected as straight revenue if you suddenly have a way to MAKE MILLIONS of people that just yesterday weren't paying a dime pay into the system? Remember that it's people just like this that is driving existing public assistance systems into virtual bankruptcy, ala Social Security. They don't pay INTO the same system they receive benefits FROM. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how that doesn't work. I'm willing to bet that this figure alone would be in millions if not BILLIONS of dollars rather quickly. Look at how much money is being simply sent overseas to other countries now. Imagine if you could TAX that money via the Fair Tax. How much MORE revenue would there be? Now think about how much even more than that would there be if they were taxed BEFORE it was sent overseas.

Folks, I don't see how a revenue neutral proposal would not appeal to everyone. Wait, I know why.....because most have no clue what that is. Here is a great article that shows exactly how that works:

http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/Tax%20Notes%20article%20on%20FT%20rate.pdf

Again, how sweet would it be to no longer have no capital gains taxes, payroll taxes, gift taxes, estate taxes, minimum alternative taxes, etc. All of these taxes that exist now are either a form of double taxation or just plain BS tax. :goodjob:

[David88vert]

What's been a buzz word in the last 5-10 years??? OUTSOURCING. Why does outsourcing work? Because in the countries where U.S. BASED COMPANIES send that work to be done there are BIG tax advantages to doing so. From cheap land to the most expensive cost ANY company has......LABOR. Labor costs are the biggest expense any company has that is neither replenishable nor easily expandible. From straight up hourly wages to the truly more expensive insurance and TAXES, the corporate world loses BILLIONS to Labor each and every year. Just as one example, every reputable employer now pays between 3-10% of every single dollar paid to TAXES and Labor related expenses. Remember FICA? Remember Unemployment? Remember benefits/insurance?

Now, offer those BIG companies ....

Ok, let's look at this simply and carefully - once again.

If I as an employer pay you 50K/yr and 10K is taken out for takes, that's 20%. Suppose I give you 50K/yr under the Fair Tax - and we will assume that everything is just as you describe. As an EMPLOYER, I am paying out the same thing, so my prices will not decrease.

I work in a field with LOTS of outsourcing. Taxes are NOT what gets companies to outsource - wage rates are what does that. For example, in the US a IT person going through Accenture may be billed at 90/hr, but when the company want's to lower costs, Accenture will tell them that they can outsource the work for $55/hr to India. Of course, this looks good to the company beacuse they are saving 35/hr. They never ask about taxes - all they care about is being able to report that they cut costs in order to do one thing - met projections and raise the stock price. Accenture compensates by assigning 3 people in place of the one on the project - so you now are paying 165/hr - thus giving Accenture more income and reporting more profit and raising their stock rates. Fair Tax will not alleviate outsourcing, as you are not lowering manufacturing costs. You would see company headquarters move here, since they would not be taxed, that's all.

Another point is new people/groups/companies getting taxed. Let's look at this scenario:
A company make cabinets. They did buy material tax exempt. Now under Fair Tax, they have to pay 23% - because there are no exemptions. It now cost them more to make the cabinets, plus they are paying the same wages to their workers. Finally, shipping services are no longer $100K/yr - due to the Fair Tax collected on services - they jump to $123K/yr. Now tell me, how will the company NOT raise prices? They have no choice, so your 23% raise just got eaten up by higher prices. Even Boortz says that this is not a plan that will save people money.

Also, non-profits like churches will now be taxed, as will all companies and our own federal and state governments. Services will be taxed, like doctors and lawyers. So your simple out-patient surgery that would have run you $1,000 out-of-pocket, will now run you $1,230. That additional $230 might not hurt you if you make $1 million/yr, but for the middle class, that's a large increased cost. If you are in the middle class, not everything is covered my Medicare.


Jaime, here's the thing that I don't understand. Fair Tax is an income redistribution scheme - plain and simple. It's take from the rich and give to the poor. That is a liberal Democratic Party scheme. I thought that you and Leadfoot were both conservatives.

[Leadfoot_mf]

i am but jamie is right on this. bottom line it takes power away from the government and gives it back to the people.

[Jaimecbr900]

David, you're totally going in the wrong direction. There are quite a few "costs" that you are not taking into consideration at all.

An employer's COST is not merely withholding an employees income taxes to send to the IRS. An employer has to pay FICA taxes which come out of THEIR BOTTOMLINE, i.e. a BIG EXPENSE. An employer pays 6.2% just as a match to their Social Security and Medicare. An employer also has to PAY out of THEIR pockets Unemployment as well. That's ANOTHER 6% or so if memory serves me correct. So there alone you have EMPLOYERS PAYING 12+% out of EACH AND EVERY PAYCHECK for EACH AND EVERY W2 EMPLOYEE YOU HAVE. Now factor that 12% over the number of employees of a large manufacturer, hell even a small mom and pop place, and you can easily see that number can easily get into the thousands. I know for a fact from first hand experience that I damn sure would rather NOT have to pay ANY of those useless taxes everytime I stroke an employee a check. It's just as much a cost as Georgia Power and the Mortgage. Now imagine if you tell a company the size of Dell or Cisco Systems or Apple that they no longer have to contribute that 12% anymore.....;) You still think that "taxes" is not a corporate incentive??? ;) It damn sure is.

[Jaimecbr900]

Jaime, here's the thing that I don't understand. Fair Tax is an income redistribution scheme - plain and simple. It's take from the rich and give to the poor. That is a liberal Democratic Party scheme. I thought that you and Leadfoot were both conservatives.

You don't understand it at all then.

It is a revenue neutral proposal. In other words, it doesn't matter what you make the tax bracket is the same because you are taxed on expenditures and not income. It promotes saving and investing. It does not take from anyone to give to anyone else. It gives you your entire paycheck to do with as YOU wish and KEEP as much as you'd like.

Let me ask you a question: WHO do you think actually PAY the lion's share of tax revenue NOW???? I sure hope you don't believe Hillary and her hand out followers who think it's lower middle class America. It damn sure isn't. In reality and fact the UPPER MIDDLE to HIGH actually PAY the BILLIONS every year. Look it up, it's true. It's a fact. A fact that big Gov't doesn't want every regular Joe to know or figure out. Why? Because then you would have nothing to use as a crutch anymore. No more Robin Hood Battle crys, no more feeling like it's unfair. It's unfair alright, just not to the people the Liberals and uninformed would have you believe.

Under the current tax structure, high achievers are PENALIZED for their success via higher tax brackets and overall payments. A person earning over $150k/yr pays 3 times more than someone making $70K. They don't EARN 3 times more, yet PAY 3 times more. Fair? Hardly.

I still don't understand how someone can't see that if you get 100% of your paycheck and then pay the gov't 23% when you SPEND the money, ie. don't spend, don't pay, is a losing proposition. You are paying 30%+ NOW, so you realize that's MORE than 23%, right? PLUS you will get a credit back for necessities every month on top of that. So that widdles down the total tax burden to below 20%. Look up the current tax tables and see what your maximum income has to be to stay at a 20% bracket TODAY. I'll tell you:

0-7,550= 10%
7550-30,650=15%
Next step up is 25%. So figure that you have to make LESS than 30K/yr to even remotely be close to a 20% tax bracket if all the planets lined up and you had a rabbits foot in your pocket.

Still think the current system is better? If so, how so? ;)

[lilmanx01]

your an idiot please if u are able to vote do the country a favor and don't



Im an idiot? Harsh. Did you even take a second to think about it? Many people dont pay taxes today... many people pay under 23%, and many others may pay for more. But once a law is put into place lets say staying 23% in the future how easy could it be to ammend the law and change this 23% to lets say 26%? Or maybe 30% because that may suit the needs of the people? Honestly, I would think once this law goes into affect it only means a matter of time till it will increase to a percentage far more than many of us are willing accept.

[Brett]

I wish it would go into affect but it will never happen

[Leadfoot_mf]

Im an idiot? Harsh. Did you even take a second to think about it? Many people dont pay taxes today... many people pay under 23%, and many others may pay for more. But once a law is put into place lets say staying 23% in the future how easy could it be to ammend the law and change this 23% to lets say 26%? Or maybe 30% because that may suit the needs of the people? Honestly, I would think once this law goes into affect it only means a matter of time till it will increase to a percentage far more than many of us are willing accept.
okay along you lines of thinking why isn't it 50% now.

[jwrape]

Good Documentary on the IRS and income Tax made by film producer Arron Russo
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173

[bigdare23]

I'm not feeling the "Fair Tax" because to me the only people actually benefiting are people in the higher tax bracket. Take a college student working a part time job for an example. With the Fair Tax plan, they have to pay 23% on all of their groceries, books, computers, and all the other expenses that they are faced during the time they are in school. Cool, now they aren't paying federal taxes, but they were not paying much taxes to start with because they were not making enough. Tax for tax, they would end up loosing money if their spending habits didn't change. In addition, It seems like the Fair Tax plan would do more harm than good to the economy. Being taxed on what you spend would actually discourage many people from shopping. If people thought gas prices cause people to stop shopping, just imagine how people going to react when everything people purchase actually increases 1/4 the price due to sale taxes.


Just my :2cents:

[ironchef]

I'm not feeling the "Fair Tax" because to me the only people actually benefiting are people in the higher tax bracket. Take a college student working a part time job for an example. With the Fair Tax plan, they have to pay 23% on all of their groceries, books, computers, and all the other expenses that they are faced during the time they are in school. Cool, now they aren't paying federal taxes, but they were not paying much taxes to start with because they were not making enough. Tax for tax, they would end up loosing money if their spending habits didn't change. In addition, It seems like the Fair Tax plan would do more harm than good to the economy. Being taxed on what you spend would actually discourage many people from shopping. If people thought gas prices cause people to stop shopping, just imagine how people going to react when everything people purchase actually increases 1/4 the price due to sale taxes.


Just my :2cents:At least take the time to understand the plan before you start to spout negativities. The FairTax gets rid of corporate taxes, so stuff you buy in result would become much cheaper. And, once the FairTax is added back on, the item will be the same price as it was before with a possible difference of 2-4%.

It doesn't matter what tax bracket you're in, or how much money you're making, the FairTax will still help you.

[joecoolfreak]

At least take the time to understand the plan before you start to spout negativities. The FairTax gets rid of corporate taxes, so stuff you buy in result would become much cheaper. And, once the FairTax is added back on, the item will be the same price as it was before with a possible difference of 2-4%.

It doesn't matter what tax bracket you're in, or how much money you're making, the FairTax will still help you.

Actually, that can't possibly be right. The FairTax is supposed to be revenue neutral, so if somebody is paying less in taxes, that means someone else is paying more. It can't help everyone or it wouldn't be feasable.

[ironchef]

Actually, that can't possibly be right. The FairTax is supposed to be revenue neutral, so if somebody is paying less in taxes, that means someone else is paying more. It can't help everyone or it wouldn't be feasable.With the FairTax those decisions are left up to the individual people, not the government. Say some billionaire wants to buy a $30,000,000 yacht, well 23% or $6,900,000 is going to go to the government. So of course hes going to be paying more instead of the guy who just bought a $15,000 Civic and only paid $3450 in taxes. But it was his choice to do that. He wasn't forced to be taxed at 39% (highest tax bracket under Obama) regarddless of if he bought the yacht or not.

[joecoolfreak]

You are completely missing the point. No one is forced to pay taxes now. They just don't work and they don't have to pay taxes. Now, I wasn't saying that the wealthy will pay more than the poor, that's a given in all tax plans. What I was saying is that if any person right now will pay less taxes under the FairTax than they currently do now, that is one more person that HAS to pay higher taxes under the FairTax than they do now to maintain that it is revenue neutral.

[bigdare23]

At least take the time to understand the plan before you start to spout negativities. The FairTax gets rid of corporate taxes, so stuff you buy in result would become much cheaper. And, once the FairTax is added back on, the item will be the same price as it was before with a possible difference of 2-4%.

It doesn't matter what tax bracket you're in, or how much money you're making, the FairTax will still help you.


You state that like it's a fact. That's the goal but that doesn't mean it's going to happen. Honestly, corporations don't have to lower the prices of their products because they're paying lower taxes. Keeping their current pricing with no taxes will yield a larger profit. I don't think I ever saw a company overlook a chance at higher profit. You know and I know this world is ran off of greed and at any chance a company has to make profit they will. I also call BS, on it helping "everyone" out.



(Why did you assume I haven't taken the time to research? I checked it out and I'm not feeling it. Because my opinion is different then your doesn't mean I didn't take the time to research the topic.)

[ironchef]

You state that like it's a fact. That's the goal but that doesn't mean it's going to happen. Honestly, corporations don't have to lower the prices of their products because they're paying lower taxes. Keeping their current pricing with no taxes will yield a larger profit. I don't think I ever saw a company overlook a chance at higher profit. You know and I know this world is ran off of greed and at any chance a company has to make profit they will. I also call BS, on it helping "everyone" out.



(Why did you assume I haven't taken the time to research? I checked it out and I'm not feeling it. Because my opinion is different then your doesn't mean I didn't take the time to research the topic.)I agree about companies wanting a larger profit. But for now this is a capitalistic country, and competition is abundant. So company A can make widget x for cheaper decides to lower their price to gain market share from company b who makes widget y. This in turn drives competition between the two companies and thus prices will lower. Simple economics.

[joecoolfreak]

You just have to ask yourself a simple question. If the government is going to be recieving the same amount of income from taxes every year, who is going to pay less and who is going to pay more? This table sums it up pretty well:
http://cdn.factcheck.org/imagefiles/Fair%20Tax%20Distribution%20Slide%20by%20Income.JP G

I don't see how taxing the middle class more and the poor and wealthy less is a great idea and this is probably my biggest complaint about the FairTax system.

[Nissangeek]

The Bahamas have "fair tax". The way it works is you have 2 taxes. Sales taxes, and import taxes. Import taxes are 75% of the price of the import, so if you buy a car for $10K, you really pay $17.5K. And sales taxes are usually about 35%, not 23%. What happens is that most people go back to a bartering system, and the economy moves very slowly (compared to what we have here).

For example, in the Bahmas, most people don't buy a house, they buy a lot of land (obviously costs a lot less, so less taxes), then they trade out services to get the slab poured, then the blocks set, etc. It usually takes them years to get the house done.

When looking at changing an economic system, you have to look at other systems and see the ramifications that the choices have. Boortz does NOT have experience in that, so I would NOT listen to him on this idea.

Our country would be inserious trouble with out massive amount of debt IF the economy was slowed down significantly as it would be through the changing of our current tax process. Our trade deficit would put us into the status of a bankrupt government, similar to Argentina.

Ireland has a Fair Tax system. Seems to work fine for them. However they are a much smaller country. I def support it but it would have to be something that happened over time to give our economy time to adjust.

[joecoolfreak]

Ireland has a Fair Tax system. Seems to work fine for them. However they are a much smaller country. I def support it but it would have to be something that happened over time to give our economy time to adjust.

Um, no. Ireland has an income tax system just like we do. The FairTax system is a federal sales tax.


It is true, however, that no post-industrial nation, until now, has ever repealed its income tax and replaced it with a federal retail sales tax.

[Nissangeek]

Um, no. Ireland has an income tax system just like we do. The FairTax system is a federal sales tax.

Actually no they don't. They have a form of income tax but it is not they same as ours. They also have a type of fair tax based on what you by that ranges from 0-21% depending on the good or service. Thats what I was refering to.

[joecoolfreak]

Wrong again. Their income tax works very much like ours does. If you get paid on payroll, they tax that for income tax revenue. They just also have a VAT system, not the fair tax and nothing like it. Again, their system is nothing like what ours would be like under the Fair Tax system and therefore they provide no model similiar enough to learn whether or not it would be successful.


What about value-added taxes (VATs), like they have in Europe and Canada? Are they not consumption taxes?

While VATs are also consumption taxes, and better than income taxes, the FairTax is not a VAT. A VAT works very differently. It taxes every stage of production. It is much more complex and is typically hidden from the retail consumer. Second, in industrialized countries that have a VAT, it coexists with high-rate income tax, payroll, and many other taxes that, in some instances, have led to marginal tax rates as high as 70 percent. Third, all other industrialized countries, except Australia and Japan, have a much larger tax burden than the U.S., which requires higher rates and makes tax administration much more difficult. Lastly, a VAT is a lobbyist’s dream, allowing them to install their loopholes unbeknownst to the purchaser. A retail sales tax, in contrast, is a lobbyist’s nightmare, applied as it is under the bright lights of the retail counter.


Try again =-)

[The_ CaneCorso]

Was it the Roman empire that fell because it taxed its people to death? I could be thinking of another empire.

[David88vert]

Was it the Roman empire that fell because it taxed its people to death? I could be thinking of another empire.

http://www.unrv.com/economy/roman-taxes.php

[David88vert]

Wrong again. Their income tax works very much like ours does. If you get paid on payroll, they tax that for income tax revenue. They just also have a VAT system, not the fair tax and nothing like it. Again, their system is nothing like what ours would be like under the Fair Tax system and therefore they provide no model similiar enough to learn whether or not it would be successful....

Everything you want to know about Ireland's tax system.
http://www.revenue.ie/

It has low corporate taxes - that drives the growth. It still has income taxes on both corporations and individuals, plus a VAT. Everyone can read it. Its not the fair tax system by any means.

[SampaGuy]

With the FairTax those decisions are left up to the individual people, not the government. Say some billionaire wants to buy a $30,000,000 yacht, well 23% or $6,900,000 is going to go to the government. So of course hes going to be paying more instead of the guy who just bought a $15,000 Civic and only paid $3450 in taxes. But it was his choice to do that. He wasn't forced to be taxed at 39% (highest tax bracket under Obama) regarddless of if he bought the yacht or not.


Obviously the billionaire would go buy the yacht in another country. To make up for things like this the government would either try to discourage international trade by raising import/export tariffs and regulations to the extreme (wait a second I thought the government was supposed to have less power under the Fairtax?), or raise the estimated 23% universal sales tax to a figure that is actually reasonable...

[Verik]

Obviously the billionaire would go buy the yacht in another country. To make up for things like this the government would either try to discourage international trade by raising import/export tariffs and regulations to the extreme (wait a second I thought the government was supposed to have less power under the Fairtax?), or raise the estimated 23% universal sales tax to a figure that is actually reasonable...


problem with this is, a millionaire spending 30 million on a yacht would obviously choose a company which has been building luxury yachts for years. for the price tag of 30 million, his choices are drastically narrowed. Granted he may find someone else in the world to build it, but the inconvenience of finding a provider of a luxury item such as that may deter him from going off shore. does that make sense? honestly it would probably be about as convenient as us buying an SUV from mexico to avoid paying gas guzzler tax.

[SampaGuy]

problem with this is, a millionaire spending 30 million on a yacht would obviously choose a company which has been building luxury yachts for years. for the price tag of 30 million, his choices are drastically narrowed. Granted he may find someone else in the world to build it, but the inconvenience of finding a provider of a luxury item such as that may deter him from going off shore. does that make sense? honestly it would probably be about as convenient as us buying an SUV from mexico to avoid paying gas guzzler tax.


Actually the most famous top of the line yacht makers like Ferretti and Azimut are Italian. Americans definitely don't mind paying for European names like Ferrari, Rolex, etc. because you cannot compare the craftsmanship, and Ferretti and Azimut are definitely also in demand in the US. You can easily find a crew to deliver your yacht anywhere in the world (wouldn't that be the best job ever, lol), the delivery costs are not even a factor when you're paying for something that expensive. It definitely costs less than 23% of $30 million!

If you look at history, the fastest way to the downfall of a country is to prevent or block international trade/globalization. We don't even need to get into that.

I like the idea of the fair tax but it just doesn't seem like it would work. Most fair tax advocates are trying to engineer something where they would get the best deal and forget that the whole point of taxation is to generate funds for the government. What if we slightly lowered (not got rid of) income/corporate/etc taxes and proportionally increased sales taxes? That would be more realistic.

[Verik]

Actually the most famous top of the line yacht makers like Ferretti and Azimut are Italian. Americans definitely don't mind paying for European names like Ferrari, Rolex, etc. because you cannot compare the craftsmanship, and Ferretti and Azimut are definitely also in demand in the US. You can easily find a crew to deliver your yacht anywhere in the world (wouldn't that be the best job ever, lol), the delivery costs are not even a factor when you're paying for something that expensive. It definitely costs less than 23% of $30 million!


You are forgetting that the maker of the worlds largest and most expensive yachts is Trinity Yachts (based out of Missouri) and have made numerous $200+ million yachts for people like Paul Allen. So I imagine if the billionaires are getting their custom yachts from a domestic producer... That says something for craftsmanship. And I don't imagine that a billionaire is just going to be sold on a pretty name like middle class Americans may. Just because its from Europe does not inherently mean craftsmanship quality is greater.



If you look at history, the fastest way to the downfall of a country is to prevent or block international trade/globalization. We don't even need to get into that.

I absolutely agree with this, I never have seen a point in protectionism and I believe the more free the market the more efficient and maximized the results.


I like the idea of the fair tax but it just doesn't seem like it would work. Most fair tax advocates are trying to engineer something where they would get the best deal and forget that the whole point of taxation is to generate funds for the government.

The idea is not for the "best deal". The point is our economy is a consumption based economy with an incredibly low national savings rate (hell, in '05 we had a personal savings rate of 1%... even in this crisis we are still considered being at a high savings rate when it hasn't hit double digits, or even close to double digits for that matter at a measley 5%.... Japan saves 25-30% in the good years ffs). I'm not an advocate that is saying fair tax is best for everyone but you have to admit the greater American population spends outside their income level and that has been an issue for decades. Instead of taxing productivity, the concept is to tax consumption. While it may deter a small bit of consumption, it simultaneously increases income. Thus if you consider the spending I don't believe it will generate less revenue for the government but without empirical study, we really won't know if it will or not.

Theory supports the fair tax in our economy over that of a traditional income tax. (solow growth model to be precise.... ill upload scan in a sec)


What if we slightly lowered (not got rid of) income/corporate/etc taxes and proportionally increased sales taxes? That would be more realistic.

I see this being a more realistic compromise if whenever we see a red congress again (2012?).

[Verik]

Excuse piss poor hand writing but here is an example using solow growth. A few assumptions are made, one that the average income tax paid is around 20% for an individual. Granted I know this varies dramatically but it is this for simplicity (iirc someone making 80k a year pays est 21.5% in federal income taxes).

Just to break down the solow growth model for you guys.

Use the 100 as the base (meaning 100% after income tax) of modern day income/worker (y). F(k) represents the function of income to capital. We also know that Y (GDP) is = AF(K,L), a function of capitol and labor. Thus little y (income/worker) can also be a direct reflection of GDP (increase in both y and k results in an increased GDP). The straight line below shows the depreciation rate (held constant), and the small curved line is the personal savings rate (sy). S = savings. C = consumption. k = capital per worker.

Estimating that the increase in sales tax would deter more spending, but even if we saw an overall doubling in the average personal savings level (sustained average for national savings has been about 2.5%. 5% is considered "crisis level saving"... aka right now) we would still see not only an increase in income but an overall increase in consumption. There would be an overall increase in consumption, investment and savings. We all know from basic econ principles that increased consumption and increased savings (national savings = national investment) means higher GDP. More spending means more jobs (means we are closer to the production possibilities frontier curve, rather than inside it where we are now... even with the stimulus). It also demonstrates even with the increase in savings (and thus non taxed income) we see a slight decrease in tax revenue (this doesnt take into account cost savings of the IRS and its bureaucratic costs)

From here we can only assume but we will see net exports going up meaning that GDP will not increase by the full +21.46 that we see in the model but we also can assume that consumer habits take more than just increase in income to change (in terms of preferences). Thus, plv, it seems that Fair Tax stimulates international trade....


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v641/MrBojangles21/scan0001-2.jpg

[SampaGuy]

Well those numbers look a lot better than I expected, but you're saying that consumption would rise 20% (yes I get that people are also getting 25% more money). IMO the savings rate would be much much higher and consumption would decline a lot more than that under the fair tax. Doubling the savings rate is not very significant because the savings rate was tiny to begin with. You should have started with a big cut in consumption and went from there IMO.

When income taxes are raised, we can do absolutely nothing about it, so we don't do anything to change our normal habits. Sales tax on the other hand has a much bigger psychological impact, and gives the consumer the choice on what to do. Basically I think that the very fundamentals of American society, that of being a consumer-based economy, could possibly change into Americans saving a lot more. You cannot expect people to not change their habits when you change the rules of the game. Saving is a good thing, the point is I still don't think the 23% figure is realistic.

[SampaGuy]

About the effects of the fair tax on international trade, its kinda complicated, I gotta think a little more about it lol.

[Verik]

Well those numbers look a lot better than I expected, but you're saying that consumption would rise 20% (yes I get that people are also getting 25% more money). IMO the savings rate would be much much higher and consumption would decline a lot more than that under the fair tax.

I disagree. When given money, the first reaction of American's is to spend it. The saving's rate is far more culturally based than you are implying. Japan spent out the ass in govt stimulus during the 90's trying to get people to spend and even though they knew it would help the economy, consumers had higher savings rates than ever.



Doubling the savings rate is not very significant because the savings rate was tiny to begin with.

It's huge actually. Psychologically speaking, 5% we are at right now is big, but its enough that the government wants to spend a trillion to get people spending again (and NOT saving this much).



You should have started with a big cut in consumption and went from there IMO.

Even with 10% cut in consumption you are getting 25.875 on T (a total change of ~5).

But if you think that would occur I really disagree. With S at 12.5, there be a huge change. I'll make another graph to explain... the IS-LM curve is a pain in the ass to explain in words.


When income taxes are raised, we can do absolutely nothing about it, so we don't do anything to change our normal habits. Sales tax on the other hand has a much bigger psychological impact, and gives the consumer the choice on what to do.

You can't invest (i.e. "save) more? Psychologically I agree the tax is different. But I disagree that when taxes are changed your behavior doesn't change. Granted there is little empirical evidence for this because the changes are so minute that it wouldn't be changing your overall income level by any drastic amount.



Basically I think that the very fundamentals of American society, that of being a consumer-based economy, could possibly change into Americans saving a lot more.

A 10 year depression in Japan couldn't change their fundamentals of their economy. What do you base the US changing into a saving heavy economy on? Even in times of depression our savings rates have stayed relatively low (maxing out in the 70's at close to 13% but that was also during a time when the federal funds rate was 10-15%. Japan has averaged 15% savings and has spiked in the 1990's even against economic wisdom and available stimulus).


You cannot expect people to not change their habits when you change the rules of the game. Saving is a good thing, the point is I still don't think the 23% figure is realistic.

Savings increasing opens up a whole new ball park... brb. Especially if we are talking about American's who have lived their whole live accustomed to spending xx% and saving only x%, when given higher income they will rationalize the sales tax and continue to spending in their "comfort" % of their income.

[SampaGuy]

It's huge actually. Psychologically speaking, 5% we are at right now is big, but its enough that the government wants to spend a trillion to get people spending again (and NOT saving this much).


Thats true.



Even with 10% cut in consumption you are getting 25.875 on T (a total change of ~5).


A total change of ~5 is equal to ~20% less tax revenue coming in. So you would have to change the fair tax rate to ~27.5% instead of 23% to get the same tax revenue, assuming C and S stay the same with this new tax rate (which they wouldn't).





You can't invest (i.e. "save) more? Psychologically I agree the tax is different. But I disagree that when taxes are changed your behavior doesn't change. Granted there is little empirical evidence for this because the changes are so minute that it wouldn't be changing your overall income level by any drastic amount.


I could save more as it is, but the fair tax would be a huge incentive to do it, IMO.




A 10 year depression in Japan couldn't change their fundamentals of their economy. What do you base the US changing into a saving heavy economy on?

I base it on that huge sales tax scaring the life out of people, psychologically.


I don't think the analogy with Japan is good in this case because it is the opposite situation, which is very different. Like, it's a lot harder to get a conservative person to do something very risky than to get a risk-taker to act more conservatively, if that makes any sense. But you might be right, Americans do spend more when they get raises.

[Verik]

scanning plenty of fun stuff to look at now. should solve your thought process for capital flows and NX :)

[Verik]

These first two are simply showing how we come up with the IS-LM curve. The increase and decreases are simply for reference (not fair tax example)


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v641/MrBojangles21/1-9.jpg


So at the bottom (after deriving the curve) we know that Fair Tax (as stated above by the solow growth model) would actually decrease tax revenue at the 23% level of sales tax and no income tax. Granted I left out cost cutting on the government because thats a whole nother issue (even if we eliminated the IRS... it only costs about $10 billion per year in cost to the US government). So we know the LM curve is only effected by Monetary policy changes and the IS curve will shift for fiscal policy changes. Yes I know I am making the assumption that taxes are taxes but it affects the IS curve regardless (IS curve represents the goods market equilibrium). So with a decrease of taxes (-5 as we spoke about earlier) the IS curve will shift out by ΔT(MPC/[1-MPC]). This new IS-LM equilibrium increases Income as well as raises interest rates.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v641/MrBojangles21/2-4.jpg


So now we know what will happen with r and Y. We can move on to the more relevant markets of CF and NX. When Net CF is positive it means that we are investing abroad. When it is negative, it means they are investing in domestic firms. Simple, higher domestic interest rates will cause domestic firms to borrow from abroad (for investment) due to lower interest rates over there. Likewise, the lower our interest rates, the more attractive it is for us to lend to foreign economies. However this explanation can change depending on real exchange rates and domestic investment (higher r does not always mean capital flows going abroad... only if you hold CF constant... but we can't because increased income levels will affect available capital)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v641/MrBojangles21/3-2.jpg


Now all 3 of these correlate. Finally we apply in the very bottom what we already know from above. Y will increase, r will increase and savings will increase. We start with the Loanable funds market. Generally speaking, because of crowding out effect of a larger government deficit we will see less than a 3.75% increase in S but S will increase none the less. S increases along with an increase in R, the only way for a new equilibrium to be met is a shift in capital flows due to more overall capital available in the economy (increase in income). We hold I(r) constant because the only thing that will change demand in investment will be government tax stimulus or technological innovation. We see the shift in CF from CF1 to CF2 and the new equilibrium says that more capital is being lent abroad (the balance has shifted towards more capital of outflow than previous equilibrium). We also relate this directly to the market for foreign exchange and see that the outflow of capital translates into a lower real exchange rate and an increase (more positive) trade balance (Exports-Imports is becoming less negative or more positive).
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v641/MrBojangles21/4-1.jpg



In the end through all this we have established Fair Tax will increase our overall GDP and stimulate significant growth, all the mean while lowering tax revenue. This poses the same problem we are facing now with an ever increasing national debt. Granted it wouldn't be a trillion dollar increase to the deficit but it would be simliar to what was estimated above (20% decrease in tax revenue. annual average tax revenue now ~= 2 trillion dollars) so we'd see an increase of ~400 billion in our national defecit. IMO this is a trade off. I believe the increases in GDP would be more valuable to our economy than restraining from the debt, not to mention establishing a solid growth rate will ALLOW us to pay off our national debt in the future.... leaving things as they are now, our national debt is going to run this country's economy down the shitter before we leave the workforce.... Our country will have to resort to one (or all) of the three, increased taxes or printing money or cutting costs......... none of which has outcomes the public likes. My suggestion, create a system that feasibly eats down our deficit and prevent it from becoming an enormously large unpayable burden on our children.

[SampaGuy]

Damn dude you didnt have to write all that, lol. I thought you were a finance major, not econ haha. But it does make sense on paper, I think I'm going to read the book on the fair tax to see what else it addresses. What they do with the tax revenues is a whole different issue though, we definitely need a reform on that too.

[Verik]

Damn dude you didnt have to write all that, lol. I thought you were a finance major, not econ haha. But it does make sense on paper, I think I'm going to read the book on the fair tax to see what else it addresses. What they do with the tax revenues is a whole different issue though, we definitely need a reform on that too.


business econ/finance majors. honestly i dont quite see the capabilities of the Fair Tax to generate more tax revenues.... possibly in the long run because it will stimulate a larger growth rate, thus greater GDP/capita, thus more tax revenue is collected is a shorter period of time. That's about the only argument that could plausibly defend fair tax revenues as being larger than a traditional income tax. None the less, the simple answer to -3.74 or w/e to G, is cut spending by equal amount (hell... even more... we already have a large enough national debt. Do you think its about time we start paying on it?).

[SampaGuy]

Yes right now they basically just ignore it.

[S2KJD]

this will never pass. makes to much sense.

[91boostdgsr]

Think about this guys:

payroll deductions avg 26-28% per paycheck
--- ADD to this the fact that every time you go to the store you pay a sales tax of 6-9% per dollar you spend

this adds up to about 32-45% tax you pay just on going to work and buy the necessities in life you need to survive .

Now add in the tax that you pay on your property ( home, land, etc.) and the taxes you pay at the end of the year if you made any money cause you kept money in the bank ( CDs, stock, bonds, money markets, etc.)

THINK OF ALL THE MONEY YOU WOULD SAVE AND HOW FAST THE NATIONAL DEBT WOULD SHRINK MAYBE EVEN BE GONE IN OUR KIDS LIFETIME!!!!

Now there are aboput 10-20 million illegals who dont pay ANY INCOME TAX all they pay is sales tax when they purchase things everyday.

these people are paying only 6-9% of there income while natural citzens and legals pay approx 32-45% maybe more of their income . think of the money you would save and how the quality of life for the greatest country on Earth would be here.

Just some food for thought guys !!

[Verik]

Think about this guys:

payroll deductions avg 26-28% per paycheck
--- ADD to this the fact that every time you go to the store you pay a sales tax of 6-9% per dollar you spend

this adds up to about 32-45% tax you pay just on going to work and buy the necessities in life you need to survive .

Now add in the tax that you pay on your property ( home, land, etc.) and the taxes you pay at the end of the year if you made any money cause you kept money in the bank ( CDs, stock, bonds, money markets, etc.)

THINK OF ALL THE MONEY YOU WOULD SAVE AND HOW FAST THE NATIONAL DEBT WOULD SHRINK MAYBE EVEN BE GONE IN OUR KIDS LIFETIME!!!!

Now there are aboput 10-20 million illegals who dont pay ANY INCOME TAX all they pay is sales tax when they purchase things everyday.

these people are paying only 6-9% of there income while natural citzens and legals pay approx 32-45% maybe more of their income . think of the money you would save and how the quality of life for the greatest country on Earth would be here.

Just some food for thought guys !!

your a fucking idiot who didnt read any of my post did you?

[BanginJimmy]

PLV

Without pointing out any individual posts, you are missing one significant thing in your arguments. You keep saying that things will cost 23% more than they do now, and that is wrong. Things will cost an average of 1% more than they do now. The 23% rate takes into account the taxes paid by the manufacturers. It is estimated that the free market will push the prices of goods and services down to the same profit margins they are now, and that may even drop the prices of most goods.

[Verik]

PLV

Without pointing out any individual posts, you are missing one significant thing in your arguments. You keep saying that things will cost 23% more than they do now, and that is wrong. Things will cost an average of 1% more than they do now. The 23% rate takes into account the taxes paid by the manufacturers. It is estimated that the free market will push the prices of goods and services down to the same profit margins they are now, and that may even drop the prices of most goods.

feel free to demonstrate and quantify the theory you just explained. "i think this will happen" is not a convincing argument to say the least.