i came across the Fair Tax when reading a newspaper article on the history of the US tax policy.
it sounds interesting
thoughts?
Printable View
i came across the Fair Tax when reading a newspaper article on the history of the US tax policy.
it sounds interesting
thoughts?
It places more of a burden on the middle class according to studies.
not true, according to the site
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooahguy
Do you think a place called "fairtax.org" is going to give you impartial information on the "Fair Tax?"
While we're at it, I hear heroin has no side effects from the site www.heroinisgoodforyou.bs!
but it does give the facts. i mean, how can you do a study if its never been in place?
Every side to an argument will list "The Facts."
By your own logic, how do you know those are "the facts" if it has never been in place?
How would this affect pensioners and the poor, and others that don't pay income tax for various reasons... i suppose this kind of depends on what the current sales tax rate is ?
its 17.5% in the UK, so a 5.5% rise in that tax (or 6.5% reduction for those living below double the poverty line) i really don't see how that could replace all the other tax income...
i suppose it would encourage saving and peanalize extravagant spending. but it doesnt tax the staple foods, like milk and eggs, ect.
BTW, during the last election there were two major proponents of the "fair tax" system.
Mike Huckabee and Maurice "Mike" Gravel. While I thoroughly enjoyed the campaigns of both men (I felt so bad for Gravel I donated him $20. I mean, the guy was living off of gift bags and pbj :sad:-wiches), I personally didn't see either of them as heavyweights in their policies. It just seemed that they reached for whatever could get them the uncounted votes, like most bottom feeders. :pisces:
There are other potential problems, after i get my uni degree whats to stop me from coming over for a few years and just sustaining myself, basic staples which aren't taxed as heavily and basic shelter, then take my riches back to britian and spend at a lower tax sales rate...
another problem is drugs and the black market in general, i smoke quite a bit of cannabis so something like this would probably work out nicely for me, drugs in general would be more affordable because salary isn't taxed and all other goods are more expensive.... i feel it would encourage black market activity for legal goods as well
Though how much they are problems depends on your current sales tax rate
Also billionaires could simply earn thier money in the US and live thier lives in somewhere like monaco, apart from basic stuff during the working day (and maybe fuel for thier private jet) there would be no need to spend thier money in the US...
Sounds good .Quote:
thoughts?
Tell you what , if you get your government to introduce it I will set up a nice black market for the benefit of discerning customers .:2thumbsup:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Yes, hi, I'm here about the tax free Bentley.
too bad many politicians dont want it b/c then they would be paying more for all their extravagant spending. but if it does push through, go ahead, make a black market! since i dont pay income tax anyhow, ill be first in line!
:beam:
Well, we can always stick with the present "progressive" income tax, after all, nobody GAMES that for personal advantage....Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Your link doesn't work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoyoma1910
:wink:
In that many of us will have to actually have to start paying a federal income tax, yes. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
The fair tax is.... well, fair. I just don't think we could realistically implement it in our current circumstances. Unfortunately, the bloated size of our government requires at least some sort of progressive taxation in order to fund it. I would like to see the tax rates flattened and the tax code simplified (eliminate most credits/deductions), though.
Frankly, the US will never realistically do a flat tax. My view is that if a country is going to implement a fair tax, they'll have to sacrifice a lot of spending. And people in the US frankly want it doing more and more every year. Not to mention how it always seems that the government can build one project and spend twice the cash on it that a private enterprise does. :shrug: Never have figured that part out.
What's the evidence for that exactly? Not that I disagree, I just never see any specific examples beyond that "600$ for a toilet seat" nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by seireikhaan
The hundreds of millions that seem to be spent on roads?
Are they cheaper when the upkeep is by private companies? And if they are is it because private companies pay workers under the table instead of giving a living wage with health benefits?Quote:
Originally Posted by seireikhaan
How can it be fair when there are goods EVERYBODY NEEDS to get, such as break and milk, yet Prince or Pauper will get taxed the same.
Basically it shifts the burden of taxation onto the little guy, with much more of their money going on tax for essentials while the rich can just keep getting richer.
A fair tax worth the name is a redistributive, progressive tax policy.
Communist!Quote:
Originally Posted by JAG
:wink:
Don't wink at the communist, you wobbly!Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
:happy2:
Comrade Jag!Quote:
Originally Posted by JAG
Smells like a Miltonian black-hat operation. Or after more consideration is a bit less extremist camo of Friedmanns exact ideas. Note how much the talk about abolishing taxes - strange that the rich and very rich will profit percentage wise vastly more - income tax, estate tax, capital gain - than the rest. If you belong to the middle class or to the poor you are a fool to think about supporting this. It holds a sweet snack in front of a donkey :thumbsdown:
Folks, the Fair Tax has a couple of key components that address most of your concerns.
1. Federal revenues should not be decreased as a result of this shift in taxation format.
2. NO OTHER FEDERAL TAX IS LEVIED -- no FICA, no Medicare, no whatever. One source of taxation revenue.
3. There is an individual "prebate" due each citizen at the beginning of the month. This prebate is a direct payment by the government, in advance, for the tax to be paid for spending on basic shelter & sustenance. Yes, the "little guy" would be paying 25% on his rent, but would have already received a check for $X to offset the expected taxation cost of her housing and food. This "prebate" would be the same for every citizen or legal resident.
4. Much of the underground economy would be taxed. Even if the industry in question was illegal, sooner or later the proceeds thereof will be used to purchase legitimate goods and then they'll be taxed.
The Fair Tax goal is NOT to change federal revenue, nor to put a burden on the "little gal." The goal is to avoid a scenario that is confiscatory to ANY segment of society will simplifying the process. This would allow us to downsize the IRS and focus government spending on those programs deemed most necessary by the leadership and the people.
Good post, Seamus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
It does amuse me when people pretend to know what they are talking about in these threads, which is not to say I'm immune from such action.
To be fair to them, there is a "regressive" character to most sales taxes, since the tax levied represents a larger proportion of total wealth for someone who does not have a lot of money or income than it does to someone making megabucks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kush
The problem I see with a sales tax based system is when you have a economic slow down you will instantly cut federal revenue, more so then if you tax income.
I oppose it on its regressive nature, I consider that sufficient reason to be against it, especially since a "simple tax system", while psychologically appealing, is equally simple to evade. However you are correct-- this system would, IMHO, only work well when the economy is doing well. Every 20 or 50 years you'd be gutting the government or going into steep deficit everytime an economic downturn hit.Quote:
Originally Posted by m52nickerson