The Fair Tax (H.R. 25, S. 13)

[supraman]

Did it really? There were still cycles of booms and busts, some even more severe than we have now since introducing fiat currency. And having a rigid monetary policy would make it even harder to stabilize an economy.

Those busts where much shorter in length and for the most part recovered without government intervention. Private business fixed the issue.

 

[BigPete]

Here is one thing that stood out to me in the 'fact checker' article.



The rich are are not consuming at a rate comensurate to the working class in regards to income versus payment for goods and services. I won't have to pay income taxes anymore (good) but I still only make $30,000 a year and it costs me $25,000 to $30,000 a year to 'live'. Housing, utilities, transportation, food, entertainment, etc. How am I supposed to save money in that model? It will just perpetuate the cycle of indentured servitude and the America dream will be impossible to achieve.



The other concern I have about the concept is this: are taxes paid on consumption of raw goods and materials? If so, is this why consumption taxes of end users should not be a factor in pricing? I would think it would go the other way in that model. The producer would levy their raw material tax costs on to the end consumer with a greater retail price. Don't you think?

 

[jaxhawksfan]

1. Taxes aren't there to somehow make you rich, or make your life easier, or to make you save more money. The only "leveling" activity in your scenario is that the government is going to give you money at the beginning of each month, whereas those "evil rich" aren't going to get it. Your last sentence puzzles me. "It will just perpetuate the cycle of indentured servitude and the America dream will be impossible to achieve." If you can't fulfill the American Dream, It doesn't really have much to do with taxes. Some are winners in life, and some are not. It isn't the job of taxation to make sure you become rich.



2. Taxes are paid on retail goods, not wholesale goods.

 

[BigPete]

1. If you can't save up some money, you can't pay for school, which means you can't get a better job where you will make more money. If you are not already wealthy or you don't get extremely lucky on a small business venture or investment or the damn lottery, then you will never get rich. Being wealthy and owning things (house, cars, nice furniture and 'toys', the ability to take vacations often and in nice places) is the American dream. Many are saying that it is truely unachievable and just a myth to keep people working hard so someone else can profit from their input. Hence the indentured servitude comment.



2. Why should a manufacturer not have to pay taxes for raw materials for production? Are they not buying something from someone? If we were to shift to entirely retail consumption based tax revenue to run the company, then 'the rich' would just continue to get rich and not have to pay anything to help set up the environment in which they operate. That is a key thesis in the article. As was the mantra of the left in the midterm elections; corporations are not people but they certainly do need to contribute to society if they want to continue to use our modes of transportation to ship their goods and if they want to enjoy the defense of the military and the local public services like fire and police protection.

 

[supraman]

1. If you can't save up some money, you can't pay for school, which means you can't get a better job where you will make more money. If you are not already wealthy or you don't get extremely lucky on a small business venture or investment or the damn lottery, then you will never get rich. Being wealthy and owning things (house, cars, nice furniture and 'toys', the ability to take vacations often and in nice places) is the American dream. Many are saying that it is truely unachievable and just a myth to keep people working hard so someone else can profit from their input. Hence the indentured servitude comment.



2. Why should a manufacturer not have to pay taxes for raw materials for production? Are they not buying something from someone? If we were to shift to entirely retail consumption based tax revenue to run the company, then 'the rich' would just continue to get rich and not have to pay anything to help set up the environment in which they operate. That is a key thesis in the article. As was the mantra of the left in the midterm elections; corporations are not people but they certainly do need to contribute to society if they want to continue to use our modes of transportation to ship their goods and if they want to enjoy the defense of the military and the local public services like fire and police protection.

Think of this, if you get rid of business tax. How many companies are going to come flocking back to the states. They leave because have one of the highest corporate taxes around.



Those businesses coming back are going to employ people and a lot of people are going to need jobs since the IRS would be dead.

 

[BigPete]

The potential abuses committed against individuals (workers and customers) by unregulated manufacturing and service industries are far too great to allow for this utopian conservative model to exist in reality. As for the tax revenue portion of the equation, I can't for the life of me believe that a consumption tax would equal or outweigh existing tax revenues in America. The system would be underfunded. Many economists believe this and have written about it.

 

[MassHavoc]

One thing I never liked about sales tax which is touched upon here already just kind of talking, is that it's double taxing the consumer. The person making the product is getting taxed on all the individual pieces along the way which is already passed onto the coast of the consumer. Then we are taxed again. So like if you buy widget, the company was taxed on all the pieces of the widget and other things that it took to put the widget together. They raise the price of the widget to offset for the taxes and recoup profit, then the consumer has to again pay taxes on the same product. Or like even something as simple as say beef. The farmer is getting taxed on the food it buys to raise the cow, the land, probably the vehicles to transport, all that stuff. And then when we pick it up in the store, we are taxed on it all over again. Even though we are paying a higher price for it already because of taxes. So essentially, before it gets to the store say a pounnd of meat is $4 because they had to raise it .25 cents because of all the taxes they pay to create the product. Then we have to pay taxes on the taxes so we are paying an extra 2.5 per pound on meat in taxes. And we are doing that because of taxes. It just doesn't make any fucking sense to me. WE ARE PAYING TAXES ON TAXES.

 

[Tater]

WE ARE PAYING TAXES ON TAXES.

With money you earned that was taxed already!

 

[MassHavoc]

Exactly. I'm not against taxes. I think they are essential to the well being of the country. But the code is ridiculous, the redundancy is worth and the multiplicity is out of control. There needs to be some simple standard. Even if its a straight 15% or 20% of everything that is made or whatever. Then no more taxes anywhere else. That also would (in my mind) set a hard budget for what the governement has to work with. Less fluctuation. No tax breaks. And no tax returns.

 

[jaxhawksfan]

The potential abuses committed against individuals (workers and customers) by unregulated manufacturing and service industries are far too great to allow for this utopian conservative model to exist in reality. As for the tax revenue portion of the equation, I can't for the life of me believe that a consumption tax would equal or outweigh existing tax revenues in America. The system would be underfunded. Many economists believe this and have written about it.

There you go again. The plan is neither conservative nor utopian. This plan has little to do with conservative vs. liberal as I stated in the beginning. It has to do with economics and jobs. FACT is that we are all going to have to pay taxes in life regardless of whether or not we achieve the American Dream (except for those that don't pay Federal taxes at this point). Do you want to stick with a broken plan that allows politicians to play favorites with their buddies who pay them off?



P.S. When you say abuses, are you talking about being able to take your whole paycheck home at the end of the week?

 

[jaxhawksfan]

Exactly. I'm not against taxes. I think they are essential to the well being of the country. But the code is ridiculous, the redundancy is worth and the multiplicity is out of control. There needs to be some simple standard. Even if its a straight 15% or 20% of everything that is made or whatever. Then no more taxes anywhere else. That also would (in my mind) set a hard budget for what the governement has to work with. Less fluctuation. No tax breaks. And no tax returns.

Don't forget that you also have to pay taxes on your already taxed money and possessions when you die or bequeath them to someone.

 

[supraman]

The potential abuses committed against individuals (workers and customers) by unregulated manufacturing and service industries are far too great to allow for this utopian conservative model to exist in reality. As for the tax revenue portion of the equation, I can't for the life of me believe that a consumption tax would equal or outweigh existing tax revenues in America. The system would be underfunded. Many economists believe this and have written about it.

And many have written for it. So there are economists on both sides of the argument so we can cherry (not saying you did) the expert opinions. Also the (for lack of a better term) socialist model hasn't exactly yielded great results either.

Don't forget that you also have to pay taxes on your already taxed money and possessions when you die or bequeath them to someone.

Which is fucking Special person.

 

[BigPete]

Don't forget that you also have to pay taxes on your already taxed money and possessions when you die or bequeath them to someone.

Only if they are passing on a certain, rather large amount, or more.

 

[BigPete]

There you go again. The plan is neither conservative nor utopian. This plan has little to do with conservative vs. liberal as I stated in the beginning. It has to do with economics and jobs. FACT is that we are all going to have to pay taxes in life regardless of whether or not we achieve the American Dream (except for those that don't pay Federal taxes at this point). Do you want to stick with a broken plan that allows politicians to play favorites with their buddies who pay them off?



P.S. When you say abuses, are you talking about being able to take your whole paycheck home at the end of the week?

The conversation ultimately becomes political when you talk about who supports it and who doesn't.

 

[jaxhawksfan]

No, I don't view politics in the discussion at all. There are Democrat, Republican and Independent supporters of the bill. I would say from the perspective of percentages: Most who agree with the plan have read the books, most who don't like the plan have not read either one of them and are simply conjuring up objections based upon the ideas of others.

 

[BiscuitintheBasket]

Don't forget that you also have to pay taxes on your already taxed money and possessions when you die or bequeath them to someone.

Up to certain dollar amounts, but it is possible to move large assets and money without being taxed. Just have to know how the system works. But yea, that one I always found odd.

 

[jaxhawksfan]

Wouldn't it be better if there weren't a way to "cheat" the system?

 

[BiscuitintheBasket]

Wouldn't it be better if there weren't a way to "cheat" the system?

Yup.

 

[jaxhawksfan]

I think so too. People will generally find ways to cheat, but I don't see that being so apparent with this plan. No filing, no forms, no deductions........you buy something new, you pay.

 

[roshinaya]