FairTax

[Traep]

Sounds interesting. Not without its problems but those problems sound minor in comparison to the bloated system we currently have. Does anyone know of a good take, from an unbiased source, on whether it would actually generate comparable revenues or not?

[Killuminati]

Lol, Fair + Tax

[Carl Ragadamn]

Lol, Fair + Tax

Taxing based on consumption is the most fair way to rape people.

[Blackie_Chan]

No sources because I don't feel like searching but I'll throw some basic thoughts on the fair tax.

Pros
Consumption based, you consume more (generally rich) then you pay more
Foreigners contribute to tax money via vacations
You retain all of your money for intrest and only get taxed as you spend (vs income tax where you are more likely to over pay and lose out on intrest)


Cons
Primarily the same as in the current system, the more rich you are the more mobility you have to purchase things in foreign markets. Without a provision to tax purchased assets out of the US it would be impossible to recieve this tax money. Because the rich also can get overseas accounts where the US government has no jursdiction, it would be very hard to retrieve account transactional data to audit.


Pro to the Con
Because of the simplified method, auditors would would not need to monitor as many people, especially under a threshold of holdings. At that point the ability to direct attention to those who have enough assets to avoid taxes would be easy enough to audit.

Normally you would consider items that would get double taxed (and therefore function like a sort of tariff for US citizens) as applied to luxury good which have a value over say...$35k. This could be assessed from the purchase price, or the retail value in the US for the same or like item.

____________

my thoughts on it.

[Paganini]

I would have to think twice before backing something with a name as insulting as "FairTax". Although I do love Mike Gravel so who knows

[Daccus]

Should be called the FairerTax. One thing I really like about the FairTax is that it taxes everybody, even illegals. Most people lose their free rides off the backs of the tax payers. Also, it would be cutting the IRS down to nothing. The IRS is huge, so that alone would free up a lot of money. The main problem I see is that if it does come into effect, what would stop the government from steadily increasing the tax to make it more inline with what we're paying now? Still, I think it's far better than what we have now.

[Surly]

Always been a bigger fan of NoTax myself, or at the very least NoFederalTax

[Blackie_Chan]

Should be called the FairerTax. One thing I really like about the FairTax is that it taxes everybody, even illegals. Most people lose their free rides off the backs of the tax payers. Also, it would be cutting the IRS down to nothing. The IRS is huge, so that alone would free up a lot of money. The main problem I see is that if it does come into effect, what would stop the government from steadily increasing the tax to make it more inline with what we're paying now? Still, I think it's far better than what we have now.Shouldn't be a problem as taxes are normally percentages. This would actually be fair from the standpoint that the market would set the price for the good and then government would get its portion. The tax amount would auto increase for reasons say "inflation" because the cost of the good would also increase. However the purchasing power of the government would remain constant. That to me is the fairest part, the government, without increasing the percentage, loses alot of its ability to tax the living shit out of people and guise it in ways that the average Joe can't understand. Everyone can understand that an increase of .5% means an extra $6.00 at the grocery store.Always been a bigger fan of NoTax myself, or at the very least NoFederalTaxI agree in principle, but it would just mean the Fed would charge the states money which would have the same net result. However, I think it would rally representatives to pit against the Fed and negotiate the money paid in which an "Us vs Them" mentality would result in reduction of overall taxes paid.

So nevermind, I fully agree.

[Killuminati]

Taxing based on consumption is the most fair way to rape people.

Especially when the tax itself is a form of welfare. Since there are "prebates". Also the percentage proposed is 23% I believe but congress could raise it like hell to compensate for their reckless spending.

How about we remove the income tax and replace it with..*drum beat* NOTHING

[Blackie_Chan]

Especially when the tax itself is a form of welfare. Since there are "prebates". Also the percentage proposed is 23% I believe but congress could raise it like hell to compensate for their reckless spending.

How about we remove the income tax and replace it with..*drum beat* NOTHINGHowever an increase on a percentage is much easier to see, understand, and rally against by the general populous which is better. Right now some disguised tax increase for the "rich" which doesn't seem like a bad thing to the 50% of the people in the US, but hurts alot of non rich people is too hard to do so.

The Fairtax in general is so simple a caveman could understand it and get pissed about increases enough to not vote for a representative that increased it.

[Marbo]

Dunno, haven't really looked into the FairTax system. I've always been a fan of a low flat income tax. From what I hear and know it's just like a high GST? On one of the debates I heard Mike Huckabee say something about mailing cheques as part of it, so I was immediately turned off of it.

[Cintare]

From the little I know about it, it seems much better than normal income tax.

Why didn't more people support Huckabee? I started out hating him from what I read about him and then I thought he was awesome once I heard him speak and talk about his record. Best speaker and most straightforward of all the candidates IMO.

My favorite part was when they asked him, "What do you have to say about Rush Limbaugh and other talk-show hosts saying that Huckabee or Mccain getting the nomination will be the death of the conservatives party?"

After a comment like that, I think most people would either attack Rush or get angry. What did Huckabee say?

"I'd have to say that I wish Rush loved me as much as I love him..."

Classic.

[Traep]

Cons
Primarily the same as in the current system, the more rich you are the more mobility you have to purchase things in foreign markets. Without a provision to tax purchased assets out of the US it would be impossible to recieve this tax money. Because the rich also can get overseas accounts where the US government has no jursdiction, it would be very hard to retrieve account transactional data to audit.

That's probably the best criticism I've heard yet and possibly a trump card for the whole idea. Since our sales tax would effectively be much higher than most countries, the only reason I could see people buying most of their products from the United States would be if the prices really did drop dramatically.

I'm also not so sure about the whole no tax on used goods. It seems like this would go a long way towards conservation but also go a long way in cutting down on innovation. Frugal people would probably buy used items whenever possible. I know I would.

[Traep]

From the little I know about it, it seems much better than normal income tax.

Why didn't more people support Huckabee? I started out hating him from what I read about him and then I thought he was awesome once I heard him speak and talk about his record. Best speaker and most straightforward of all the candidates IMO.

My favorite part was when they asked him, "What do you have to say about Rush Limbaugh and other talk-show hosts saying that Huckabee or Mccain getting the nomination will be the death of the conservatives party?"

After a comment like that, I think most people would either attack Rush or get angry. What did Huckabee say?

"I'd have to say that I wish Rush loved me as much as I love him..."

Classic.

For one, he seemed like a religious zealot. It would be pretty hard for the secular part of the country to get behind the guy. He was funny though, sometimes.

[Carl Ragadamn]

Why didn't more people support Huckabee?

Um inherent distrust of former Gov. of Arkansas who was born in Hope and played a musical instrument on late night TV?

[Blackie_Chan]

That's probably the best criticism I've heard yet and possibly a trump card for the whole idea. Since our sales tax would effectively be much higher than most countries, the only reason I could see people buying most of their products from the United States would be if the prices really did drop dramatically.The main thing is to assess assets owned, which becomes an estate management question. When you look at the extremely wealthy (which don't number the millions like the rest of us folk), taxing the increase in estate value is the key. The requirement for these individuals would be to show where they purchased the item. The obvious loophole being buy overseas when cheaper, sell to a dummy company, and purchase in the US for nothing. However because of invoicing, this would be easily traceable through reciepts, business ownership and registration to individuals, blah blah blah. Again the amount of people required to do this sort of management and tracking would be reduced as well as the number of facilities, and other overhead costs that are currently in the system. I think it is a much more reasonable option.

I'm also not so sure about the whole no tax on used goods. It seems like this would go a long way towards conservation but also go a long way in cutting down on innovation. Frugal people would probably buy used items whenever possible. I know I would.I think that is a bad policy, money changes hands, a tax should be paid. However, under this idea things like inheritence tax, capital gains tax, etc. should all go away. The point of a change like this is to allow the individual to maintain wealth and that there are no artificial ceilings to attaining wealth. Self management on consumption and families increasing their wealth level should be encouraged, which the current tax law does not at all. It forces the lower level earners to have the hardest time climbing the ladders and requires the individual to have to push well into the top bracket before realizing a large gain in increasing their wealth.

[Surly]

I agree in principle, but it would just mean the Fed would charge the states money which would have the same net result. However, I think it would rally representatives to pit against the Fed and negotiate the money paid in which an "Us vs Them" mentality would result in reduction of overall taxes paid.

So nevermind, I fully agree.Well yeah, that's the whole idea.

[losinglife]

fairtax is a step in the right direction.

Of course as i said 10000 times before this is because i would basically be paying no tax. And all those dumb bitches who waste money will be paying ass loads of tax forcing them to rethink how they spend money.

No tax isnt going to happen anytime soon, and as soon as we get people off the idea of needing an income tax the better.