i'm all for it. that's what the states of the Union need to do. it'd make it better for everyone.

5/17/2007 1:30:12 PM

If they abolished property and income tax and replaced them with a VAT or sales tax, it would be much easier to enforce and reduce tax evasion.

5/17/2007 1:34:58 PM

<obvious reference to overburdening the poor with an increased sales tax>

5/17/2007 1:39:17 PM

Sales tax is the fairest tax.

5/17/2007 1:43:39 PM

^ A legit complaint, that the fairtax tries to deal with by means of the tax being scaled differently for different kinds of items (ie: food versus luxury vehicles)

http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/FairTax-Fundamentals_and_facts-070122.pdf

See page 5 under "Preserves overall progressivity of the Federal Tax Burden" I'm not saying it's perfect, but I think it has the potential to be the solution.

5/17/2007 1:43:53 PM

and here i thought this economy got by because people spent their money (poor and rich alike) on goods that they didn't need. won't this discourage spending?

5/17/2007 1:46:54 PM

The economy is largely investment-driven. A high sales tax would encourage savings and investment.

Excessive spending on disposable goods and services is ultimately bad for the economy.

[Edited on May 17, 2007 at 1:50 PM. Reason : 2]

5/17/2007 1:49:31 PM

I hate poor people too, b.

5/17/2007 1:50:21 PM

Quote :

"Excessive spending on disposable goods and services is ultimately bad for the economy. "

and here i thought that's what our economy thrived on.

5/17/2007 1:51:08 PM

That's a valid concern, but hard to model effectively... However, the economy is also fueled by investments which the fairtax will most definitely encourage investing.

(And the higher take-home income will encourage spending... to some degree counteracting (possibly overcoming) that discouraged spending.)

5/17/2007 1:53:56 PM

Quote :

"And the higher take-home income will encourage spending... to some degree counteracting (possibly overcoming) that discouraged spending. "

something tells me people will be paid enough to get by and no more (especially the poor)

[Edited on May 17, 2007 at 1:55 PM. Reason : wrong quote]

5/17/2007 1:54:59 PM

^ just like now?

5/17/2007 1:58:52 PM

Heck no; Property taxes are fine. But we do need a VAT tax, especially since I don't know how the price of used goods is determined by the marketplace. If a VAT tax drives up the price of a new car by by 20%, it does follow that the price of identical used cars would go up, but perhaps it went up by less than the 20%?

If that is the case, then perhaps a consumption tax would be partially avoided by those of lesser means which more often buy depreciated (used) durable goods such as cars, furniture, electronics, etc.

Also, a carbon-tax to replace the payroll tax would be a major benefit.

5/17/2007 1:59:03 PM

fuck that. abolishing property tax in favor of sales tax would not benefit the poor or even myself. As a college student I do not own property and would be pretty pissy about paying 20% sales tax. If you want to own a house suck it up or just rent. After all your property taxes help pay local governments to maintain the roads to your house/ garbage pickup/ and pay the fire dept who will be scrambling to your place when your toaster oven catches the kitchen on fire



[Edited on May 17, 2007 at 2:39 PM. Reason : l]

5/17/2007 2:37:43 PM

thank you for joining the discussion without having a clue about that which you are speaking

5/17/2007 2:43:41 PM

a "fairtax" is only "fairer" for the rich, many who got there doing very "unfair" things

5/17/2007 3:20:27 PM

yes, because clearly the wealthy are only wealthy because they stole it from someone

5/17/2007 3:23:17 PM

Do away with income tax, and all the other little taxes, and just put in a national sales tax. Charge the tax on everything, including houses. It would make it much harder to "cheat", and give no incentives to hide money overseas.

The only thing excempt should be basic foods, and clothes under a certain limit. That would be amazing. I would buy a car tommorrow, lord knows I need one.

5/17/2007 3:35:52 PM

poor people hate me

5/17/2007 3:37:56 PM

Quote :

"a "fairtax" is only "fairer" for the rich, many who got there doing very "unfair" things"

Why don't you read the freaking FairTax bill before you stay stupid ass shit that makes you look like a complete idiot. Nobody pays any FairTax up to the poverty level.

Liberals love taxing the rich and giving it to the poor because that's their voting base. What happens when you continue to give poor people money, and don't expect them to ever repay it or progress out of their current income bracket? They become loyal. The FairTax will help transform tax burdens into taxpayers.

The prices of goods now already have corporate income taxes embedded in them, where's the constant uproar over that? Also, ever heard of the payroll tax, the most regressive and damaging tax to low-income employees? Nope, most "poor" people don't know what it is either. You get rid of these two things and it helps everyone.

[Edited on May 17, 2007 at 4:13 PM. Reason : PS - Write your Senator or House Rep. and let them know you favor the FairTax!]

5/17/2007 4:12:50 PM

Quote :

"PS - Write your Senator or House Rep. and let them know you favor the FairTax!"

but i don't!

will everyone have cards or something saying their income?

will they just have to file sales tax refunds?

5/17/2007 4:15:29 PM

^ We could incorporate that information with the biometrics in the national ID

5/17/2007 4:17:23 PM

if there are no property taxes, poor people would be more financially able to buy and keep property

5/17/2007 4:19:44 PM

i have an honest question. will we carry around pay stubs? will there be a refund? will you get charged the sales tax by the merchant or will there be some sort of other mechanism?

5/17/2007 4:28:14 PM

^ Retail establishments will collect the sales tax.

^^^^ Each household receives a monthly Prebate for sales taxes up to the poverty level. So, if you spend at the poverty level or below, you have a tax rate of 0%.


See the link for further explanation:

http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/FairTaxPrebateExplained2007.pdf



If you have other questions please go to http://www.FairTax.org - they pretty much answer all questions there.

[Edited on May 17, 2007 at 4:38 PM. Reason : .]

5/17/2007 4:32:54 PM

We are keeping around the EITC, right?

5/17/2007 4:41:46 PM

looks like everyone will be paying more except for the top 10%. big surprise.

and that's with the prebate. (the graph is from the presidential advisory panel on tax reform found here: http://www.taxreformpanel.gov/final-report/TaxReform_Ch9.pdf)

[Edited on May 17, 2007 at 4:55 PM. Reason : .]

5/17/2007 4:54:09 PM

the rich should pay for everything

5/17/2007 4:57:07 PM

Look at the EITC intention from http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=96406,00.html

"The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) sometimes called the Earned Income Credit (EIC), is a refundable federal income tax credit for low-income working individuals and families. Congress originally approved the tax credit legislation in 1975 in part to offset the burden of social security taxes and to provide an incentive to work."

The FairTax does not tax social security, so the EITC will be discarded. The Family Consumption Allowance (FCA) provides a prebate so families can spend up to the poverty level and pay 0% taxes.


^^ The fairtax taxes consumption, not income. Don't punish someone for working hard and earning a high wage. Or you could just cut government spending for useless programs that repress the poor, ship the illegals out, and let them have those jobs.



[Edited on May 17, 2007 at 5:04 PM. Reason : .]

5/17/2007 4:59:04 PM

but we should punish those who don't?

5/17/2007 5:05:23 PM

Having 0% taxes up to the poverty line is hardly punishing.


Why don't we just take all those rich people and make them give every American a portion of their salary, and then we can rename ourselves the United States of Socialist America.

[Edited on May 17, 2007 at 5:07 PM. Reason : .]

5/17/2007 5:06:24 PM

Quote :

"Having 0% taxes up to the poverty line is hardly punishing."

taxing the bottom 80% of the country more is.

[Edited on May 17, 2007 at 5:08 PM. Reason : .]

5/17/2007 5:07:00 PM

I'm all for it, I'd like to see the day we can stop renting our houses from the state.

5/17/2007 5:11:51 PM

so tax the lower and middle class more is the answer?

[Edited on May 17, 2007 at 5:13 PM. Reason : .]

5/17/2007 5:12:45 PM

no of course not, tax the rich more is the answer

5/17/2007 5:13:07 PM

What are you talking about? "More" implies that poor people pay taxes. They don't.

It's 'tax the middle class more' if anything.

[Edited on May 17, 2007 at 5:14 PM. Reason : nice edit]

5/17/2007 5:14:30 PM

i mean i'd be cool with cutting taxes if it also meant cutting spending, but i haven't seen any evidence of that happening. so until then, cutting taxes for the rich seems very wrong.

5/17/2007 5:14:43 PM

Cutting taxes on the rich always brings in more revenue, so I don't see what's so wrong with it.

5/17/2007 5:15:35 PM

well if less money comes into the government from taxes, less money has to be spent.

5/17/2007 5:16:31 PM

Ok I have to go home from work, so I don't have an hour to write out how the FairTax will help low-income families. But take the time to read this:

http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/FairTax-Fundamentals_and_facts-070122.pdf

That will explain a lot about the progressive system, and how it will help low and middle income families.

5/17/2007 5:16:36 PM

Quote :

"well if less money comes into the government from taxes, less money has to be spent."

Of course. The fundamental point that you are missing is that cutting taxes on the rich has led to MORE REVENUE, not less. We had a slight dip in revenue in 2001-2002, but since then revenue has been higher than ever. The only logical conclusion is that the Bush tax cuts spurred the economy and fostered economic growth, which led to higher tax revenues for the government.

5/17/2007 5:19:08 PM

is that inflation-adjusted?

found my answer: no



[Edited on May 17, 2007 at 5:25 PM. Reason : .]

5/17/2007 5:24:53 PM

Wait, what?

This graph shows what I was saying. Revenue is up since the slight drop around 2002-2003 (not 2001-2002).

Here is a decent link showing how the tax rate has gotten more progressive, not less, over the last 20+ years.

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/archives/2007/04/_surprising_ans.html



[Edited on May 17, 2007 at 5:30 PM. Reason : 2]

5/17/2007 5:28:14 PM

Quote :

"but since then revenue has been higher than ever. "

see, that's not true.

5/17/2007 5:31:28 PM

touche

Revenue is on the upswing, however, and it's safe to assume that it was higher in 2006 than in 2000.

5/17/2007 5:39:35 PM

http://www.cbpp.org/1-29-07bud.pdf

5/17/2007 6:10:32 PM

^ Hmm, why should congress allow spending to grow to 30% of GDP? Surely Government can do with just 20% of everything.

5/17/2007 6:33:26 PM

because that is what will happen with the increased debt. National debt gets included in spending.

5/17/2007 7:07:14 PM

Ahhh the FairTax.

And I didn't bring it up this time

Quote :

"will everyone have cards or something saying their income? will they just have to file sales tax refunds?"

You will not have to file any more tax returns. There are no sales tax refunds to fill out. Only companies will have to apply for refunds on products used for business purposes.

Quote :

"But we do need a VAT tax"

No way! L-Snark and I have debated this many times. The basic problem with a Value added Tax (VAT) is that it taxes the product at different stages of production. The taxes are hidden in the cost of the item..so you are never quite sure how the tax is created. VATs are very foggy taxes and prone to gerry-rigging by those cwafty politicians.

The FairTax Bill (now with 60 sponsors, more than the flat tax) is one set rate of 23% inclusive. If the price tag says $100. You pay $100. The retailer sends $23 to the gov't.

5/17/2007 9:16:37 PM

Quote :

"will everyone have cards or something saying their income? will they just have to file sales tax refunds?"

no, everyone gets the amount of money equivalent to making someone at the poverty line pay zero tax. only after poverty level spending do you pay any net tax, and if you don't spend much more than the poverty line, you barely pay any tax, etc.

Quote :

"i mean i'd be cool with cutting taxes if it also meant cutting spending"

no you wouldn't. "cutting spending" means cutting our stupid welfare/entitlement programs, which is effectively the same thing as taxing the poor.

i think that weaning Americans from the government's teat is, in fact, a great idea, but most people who pay lip service to "cutting spending" don't REALLY want to cut spending.

5/17/2007 11:12:47 PM