Slashdot Mirror

No one want sit..besides most movie goers... and pre-teen kids are going to demand it as they get older.

It's hear, it's going to stay, and it will become the norm.

But yeah, lets ignore the numbers and demands and go with your two friends. I mena, what kind of myopic twit would think that thre 2 friends are what determins a trend? "Support the Fair Tax. http://fairtax.org/" ah, I see.

Get rid of the income tax, and make unions take LESS, along with CEO's taking LESS. When a CEO makes hundreds of times the "average" wage, and unions make hundreds of times the average wage, and then you have the punishing effects of EPA regulations, government taxes, why anyone would want to do business in America is beyond me. The only way to bring manufacturing & capital back to America is to get rid of the income tax! http://www.fairtax.org/

The "Fair Tax" won't pass because so many people would be harmed by it, and so many people would object to being lied to.

What people would be hurt? They would be getting a nearly 24% raise in pay since they wouldn't be paying any taxes out of their paycheck, no income, no social security, nothing. Not one dime coming out of their paychecks. On top of that they would be getting a check every month from the government to cover the cost of those necessities in the form of a prebate.

The "Fair Tax" proponents don't tell you the actual rate, they tell you the final percentage of your bill that is taxes. The typical example I hear is "a $71 dollar shirt would cost $100, a 29% tax." The truth is, 29/71*100 is a 41% tax. (Nobody expresses existing sales taxes as "of the whole" numbers, it's always "of the item".)

The rebuttal to that point is several pages, but needless to say you are misinformed.

The second reason it is unfair is because it punishes people who have saved money. I have two kinds of accounts -- post- and pre-tax. The day the "Fair Tax" goes into effect, every dollar in a post-tax account goes down 41% in value. (I could have bought the $71 shirt for $71 yesterday, today it costs $100.) Every dollar in my pocket yesterday, which is post-tax money, will be taxed again. Every dollar in my pre-tax accounts goes down 41%, too. That money was put away with the promise that I could withdraw it when I'm old and have no income, thus most likely paying no tax on it.

You're 41% number is off, and I would hope that if/when the bill was up for debate that pre-tax accounts would be reimbursed. I'm well informed on the fair tax, but far from an expert. But that is something that would be easily fixed.

Want to hear the biggest lie the Fair Tax people spew? "It will do away with the IRS." Someone has to be in charge of collecting and processing the "Fair Tax", and even if it isn't CALLED the IRS it will still have the same function. It will be a massive federal agency tasked with tracking down every ten year old who spends a buck on a piece of candy to make sure the taxes are paid.

Yeah, I don't see the IRS going away either, but I do see them leaving nonbusiness owners alone. If you own a business you'd still be required to file sales taxes, but it would be part of your job, not something you have to do to be a citizen. If you own a retail business you still have to pay taxes, but there are a lot less retailers than there are people which means there is a smaller pot to have to watch and a lot less loop holes to wiggle out of. I'd rather the IRS be watching Wal-Mart than watching me. I shouldn't be put in jail or fined because HR Block fucked up my taxes, I shouldn't have to file taxes anyway. I don't mind paying taxes I mind the stress properly filing.

See? There will be so much paperwork and effort involved in dealing with the "Fair Tax" that nobody will be out of work. You can't get rid of the mortgage deductions because too many people want it. You can't get rid of charitable giving deductions ditto. At the end of the year, you'll have to find some way of figuring out how much you paid in "Fair Tax", which means keeping ALL your receipts, just so you can make those deductions. Businesses will have to add staff just to keep track of the new tax.

Unless you're buying a new house there would be no taxes to worry about. Just buy a used house, that is the huge mortgage deduction you want. If you're rich build yourself a new house and pay the 24% sales tax on the house, if you can't afford that buy a used house and safe 24%. Its not that hard and that is what is good about the Fair Tax. Also deductions are already calculated based on your income and given as part of your monthly prebate check. So you wouldn't need to keep rec

Nonsense. It gives everybody enough money to pay the taxes on the stuff they need. Poor people end up paying a lower percentage of their income in taxes, because this money offsets the taxes they do pay on the lower amount they spend.

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_faq_answers

There are plenty of things to criticize in the plan, but this is not one of them.

That's why accountants fight the Fair Tax so fiercely. If it were enacted they'd all need to go find honest work.

Agreed and this is a strong argument in favor of the Fair Tax. http://fairtax.org/ Elimination of business taxes, payroll taxes, and all the other myriads of taxes that make business owners and their minions spend millions of dollars and hours just to comply means that business can concentrate on business. It's not just a matter of lower taxes (Fair Tax is actually revenue neutral) but a lowering of the cost of operating legally.

Well, I readily admit that I'm not a flat tax expert. (though I believe I described and criticized the flat tax approaches to poverty I'm familiar with; I didn't say there were none). What am I missing?

In case of Fair Tax, you are missing prebates.

I think other "flat" tax proposals include standard deductions (although lower than what we have now) to make sure that the really poor people aren't hit with the tax.

This isn't to say, of course, that Fair Tax doesn't have other problems (mainly the difficulty of doing two things simultaneously; repealing the 16th amendment and raising a new tax), but being regressive isn't one of them.

A national sales tax (NOT the same as a VAT) has none of these problems, carries no need to track income, is much more difficult to cheat, is paid by foreign nationals who visit this country including illegals, is paid by people who deal drugs and other contraband not currently tracked by the IRS, and has a much lower cost of compliance to businesses than the current ridiculously complex tax code.

And, it's regressive. Thanks for playing.

Another objection trivially answered. See this page in the section called "How does the prebate work?"

A sales tax is actually inherently progressive. It taxes not income nor savings, but consumption. Who do you suppose consumes more, rich people or poor people? Who do you suppose will pay a proportionally higher share?

Someone right at the poverty level will have no net Fair Tax liability because of the prebate. Someone below the poverty level will receive more in prebates than they pay in federal sales taxes. Anyone above either level will pay taxes according to how much they spend.

Like I said for a reason, this is the most well-researched piece of legislation in history. If you can think of an objection in two minutes, it has already been answered.

The problem is that you choose not to participate in the election process during the times where the parties are selecting the candidates. Both parties hold primary elections of some sort in each County and State to determine who their candidate for office is. Depending on how many people of your preferred party wish to participate in this process, you can participate, at least at the precinct level.

I decided to participate this year (for the first time ever), and changed my voter registration from Independent to Republican (I'm still independent of thought, but I really want to vote against O). I've participated in a Precinct and County meeting, and because of the low member turnout, expect to even go to the State primary, which happens to be within easy driving distance from home. I am certain I won't go beyond this... first because I'd have to travel some inordinate distance to participate, and second because there are LOT of people involved at the State level.

Is this a lot of fun? I'd say it was at least interesting... although I'm 52 now, and I'm certain that 20 years ago I would have lost interest quickly. I must admin that I made it to the site of the State Republican convention last year (although only as a vender at the Fair Tax table), but from what I saw and heard, a State convention can be fun, tedious, and frustrating. The County level convention that I attended this year was interesting, although the only voting involved were Straw Poles for State and local candidates. I did get to see Roberts Rules of Order in action.

All this aside, I encourage everyone to at least learn something about the system, even if you don't want to jump in and participate. If you do get involved, then you will at least have been involved in choosing one of the candidates... even if you don't like the result. If you don't take part, then you don't have room to complain.

Corporations Don't Pay Taxes. They never have. They redirect money from the profits they make from us to the taxes.

The "Fair Tax" http://www.fairtax.org/ removes this farce and will bring companies back to the USA since corporations won't be taxed. If you were a company looking to relocate in the world, would you choose a country with ZERO corporate taxes or one with any taxation over 10%?

Sales tax punishes poor people. Rich people can easily afford it. So unless you have some sort of sliding scale sales tax based on income, and I don't know how you would accomplish that, then it's not the right way to go.

Rebates or prebates, as someone indeed figured out already.

At times like this, I wish we'd use something else

The IRS shouldn't even exist. Why tax productive work? Why not tax consumption? The more you buy, the more tax you pay. If you save and are thrifty, the less tax you pay.

http://www.fairtax.org/

couple of thoughts, http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/FairTax-Fundamentals_and_facts-070122.pdf, "The FairTax lowers the lifetime tax burden for most Americans" page 2 "The FairTax preserves the overall progressivity of the federal tax burden." page 5 "The FairTax dramatically improves the U.S. economy. " page 7 also considering the prebate that gets added in, the lower end of the incom spectrum looks pretty good.

Sales taxes (and other consumption taxes) are regressive taxes. However, not all policies involving sales taxes are regressive. The simplest (perhaps not the best...) example of such is the FairTax proposal. It uses a combination of a flat sales tax rate with a constant dollar rebate to each consumer. The combination means that with increasing spending, a larger net fraction of your spending is on taxes. That is, it's a progressive sales tax.

Of course, the Google proposal also talks about various incentive taxes. Whether these are good or bad seems to depend mostly on whether you're calling them sin taxes or a way to internalize externalities so that the market can actually optimize overall wealth. Markets optimize locally; external costs of production that are borne by people other than the producers (like pollution) will be undervalued in the optimization process. Transferring those costs back onto the producer through taxes internalizes that externality and lets the market optimize the thing it should actually be optimizing.

A tax system that was actually based on setting goals, and then looking at data and evidence about what tax systems would actually achieve those goals, would be perhaps the biggest advance in government technology in centuries. Of course, it's also spectacularly idealistic and difficult to make work. But then, so are all the other ideas they list, so...

(I haven't actually decided which to cast my vote for yet, but the taxes proposal is on the short list.)

Ummm.... what about the second highest corporate tax rate in the world ? It sits at about 39%. I think that just might have something to do with wanting to leave.

Corporate taxes are a joke. They just get passed on to the consumer anyway, and they make businesses less competitive internationally. But it is politically rewarding to go after the big evil corporations and for them to pay their way.

Really, and end to corporate taxes is a big reason why I strongly support the FairTax . It would no longer hide the taxes we pay, and special interests would not be able to carve out exceptions for themselves life they do all the time now.

If you include getting rid of income taxes, you've described the Fair Tax.

if food, medicine, and shelter were not taxed then the poor would not be paying as much in tax

That is true. However, it seems that the FairTax does not have such exemptions.

I thought I heard of one fair tax proposal that did have exemptions for food, medicine, and shelter. While looking I didn;t find it but I did find this: Why not just exempt food and medicine from the tax? Wouldn't that be fair and simple?"

"Exempting items by category is neither fair nor simple. Respected economists have shown that the wealthy spend much more on unprepared food, clothing, housing, and medical care than do the poor. Exempting these goods, as many state sales taxes do, actually gives the wealthy a disproportionate benefit. Also, today these purchases are not exempted from federal taxation. The purchase of food, clothing, and medical services is made from after-income-tax and after-payroll-tax dollars, while their purchase price hides the cost of corporate taxes and private sector compliance costs."

"Finally, exempting one product or service, but not another, opens the door to the army of lobbyists and special interest groups that plague and distort our taxation system today. Those who have the money will send lobbyists to Washington to obtain special tax breaks in their own self-interest. This process causes unfair and inefficient distortions in our economy and must be stopped."

However, at some point in the wealthier brackets, it would still become regressive as investment takes over the outflow of capital from wealthy individuals' coffers.

As more money is invested though more jobs will be created which will drive up wages. So the poor will benefit. Only those who don't work may not, but with higher wages more people will be donate so even they may be helped.

Oh, and regarding donating I heard on CNN that the poor actually donate more than the wealthy. While I didn't find it on the CNN website I found another website that has it: "America's poor are its most generous givers".

You could still make an argument that this is a good way to incentivize investment, but I still think it would cause the rich-poor gap to widen.

I don't think that would happen the way I would do it. To save tyme I didn't include everything in my previous post on a fair tax. While I would get rid of personal income taxes I would not get rid of income tax on corporations. Now this is where I disagree with other Libertarians, some would eliminate income tax for corporations but not me. This is because corporations enjoy limited liability and I feel such a business has to pay for that. And an income tax is a good way to do it.

Falcon

Yes, you are describing the reason why this has not, and cannot easily, be implemented.

An easier approach might be to replace our current convoluted nightmare of an income tax with a national sales tax. Yes, I know that is not money collected by individual states but, since almost all merchants are already set up to collect local state taxes, it's not much of a stretch to have them collect the federal tax as well. Since that tax can then easily be levied on internet sales, federal collections will increase - which will result in more money becoming available to the individual states. A much simpler system than what we have now.

It also has the added benefit of everyone keeping all the money they earn until they choose to spend it on something.

If you think IRS is intrusive looking at your pay slip, wait till you get IRS demanding you show documentation for having paid tax on your wrist watch and shaving blades.

I'm going to be nice and not insult you, but you really shouldn't have a +5 Insightful with such an ignorant comment. The point of a consumption tax is to keep the IRS from ever coming after an individual. Only people with a business license would be paying taxes. So the IRS would never go after the individual for a watch he bought. Instead when the landscaper applied for his business license and filed the taxes for his business that is where the IRS would come in. The consumers have no legal responsibilty to pay the consumption tax, it is purely the responsibility of the business owner. If you want to keep your business you'll pay your taxes.

http://www.fairtax.org/

promote the "Fair Tax".

Under the fair tax this would not have been an issue, since income would have never been taxed. There would have been no way for the payroll company or those being paid to avoid taxes since the collection of those taxes would have been at point of sale of goods. There would also be no reason for tax shelters or any of the other evasion tactics people currently use to pay less income tax.

http://www.fairtax.org/

Corporations don't pay taxes, their customer do. This is obvious, since corporations only have income from sales, right?

Why not remove all the hassles for corporations by stop taxing their income and only tax sales on new items? Used items wouldn't be taxed, used homes, used cars, used diapers - not taxed. This would encourage "reuse" for all the "green" and save the earth people.

If corporations are not taxed at all, then jobs would flock to the country that does that.

Income taxes miss the entire black market and crime worlds. Rather than miss those people, a national sales tax is needed. This also gets taxes people who work "off the books."

Taxing sales could be called a regressive tax since poorer people spend more on food relative to their income. To solve that issue, everyone who is a citizen and registers their family would get a "food tax rebate" monthly to cover the taxes on food. This is an estimated amount, not based on income or location. If you live where food is cheaper, then this rebate gives you more money, relatively. If you choose to live in more expensive food locations, it helps less.

I wish I had come up with this idea, but I didn't. http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main

It encourages hard work. The government gets the same amount of money that they get today. Reuse is encouraged. The IRS is gone. Your spending determines you taxation, so saving is encouraged. Really wealthy people spend more, so they are taxed at a much higher rate.

Most importantly, with corporate taxation gone, many, many jobs would flock to the USA. Offshore work would still exist, but it would need to be even more competitive.

I thought that Keynes was all about macro stuff

I actually just started reading Human Action today, and really enjoying it. In the scholar edition (that is the edition linked), the introduction covers a lot of the personal relationship and rivalry. I always had that impression, and had been told, that Microeconomics was about small local economies, while macroeconomics looks at the economy from the big picture / national level. But the impression I was getting from the intro of that book was that to a certain extent the interpretation of what "micro" and "macro" meant was intentional by proponents of Keynes. I think a more appropriate (though maybe just as bias) meaning of "micro" (which Mesis agreed with) was that he advocated for a bottom-up approach, and that Keynes "Macro" philosophy was a top-down approach. I could only hope to ever explain the fundamental differences between bottom-up and top-down as well as this guy. It is a great read, and MUCH shorter than the link above that covers a mans life work; Feynman on the Challenger disaster. Looking at the big picture is useful, but trying to control it directly will not cause the changes intended because too many things can be tied to that element that were not realized. Looking at a problem from the bottom-up, not to advocate for micro-management so much as delicate management, you get a much better perspective on all variables, and any policies taken from such an approach will be more precise, and better learned from to build upon appropriately. Anyway, I'll not just keep going on with that, but see how that definition of "microeconomics" is really different than to mean small and only appropriate when involving a few number of people?

Oh, and as long as were on the topic, I am actually a big fan of The Fair Tax. I think it is much more than "a national sales tax" and is worth looking at in fine detail. I think our tax code has

Leftist feel-good cirriculums dominate

Are you ignorant? First of all, the "feel-good" curricula (wow, incorrect spelling and incorrect use of the plural, is that because all those mean liberals didn't teach you correctly?) was mainly a right-wing strawman. Secondly, NCLB is pretty much the opposite of feel-good curricula, and it hasn't really helped matters, eh?

Support the Fair Tax. http://fairtax.org/ Promote peace, kill more bad guys.

Oh, guess you ARE ignorant.

Every tax the government does to companies, gets paid by the consumer. I recommend reading the Fair Tax book by congressman Jon Linder and Neal Boortz. http://www.fairtax.org/ It's astounding reading how many things have imbedded costs to items due to taxes that get passed off to the consumer. Cap and Trade will tax businesses for the consumption of energy they use and guess what happens? They raise the price of their product to pay for the tax increase. Guess what video game developers are going to do now?

2) Implement a single flat sales tax. People with more money buy more, and thus everyone pays fairly. Note that corporations 'buy' their employees, and so that tax would hit salaries and wages too.

http://www.fairtax.org/

This would be a non-issue in the US if we adopted the Fair Tax Plan ( http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main ) or something similar.

AMEN!!

One of the biggest problems the USA has is that because of some 67,500-plus pages of regulation derived from the Title 26, the Internal Revenue Code, the result is that there is ENORMOUS incentive for tax evasion either by participating in the cash-only underground economy or using every possible loophole in our tax laws to send money to offshore financial centers (OFCs) around the world. (I've read the current estimate of liquid assets sent "offshore" could be as high as a mind-boggling US$16 TRILLION!)

With the FairTax system in place, that incentive to "offshore" assets and participate in the underground economy goes away, since savings and investments are no longer subject to tax. Not only will we see most of that US$16 TRILLION return to the USA, but we could see several trillion more come in from foreign investors eager to take advantage of no more taxes on earning money. We're talking a potential US$20 TRILLION in liquidity entering our financial system, an amount so huge that it makes any Obama Administration stimulus plan look tiny in comparison and is big enough to even recapitalize failing companies like AIG, Citicorp and even the Big Three automakers.

An interesting side note: under FairTax, we could see a huge number of cargo ships suddenly becoming US-flagged because there will be no more taxes on the revenue they generate from carrying cargo around the world--the USA becomes the world's largest "flag of convenience" for cargo ships. That means all those abandoned and idled shipping ports will come to life again, bringing in potentially hundreds of thousands of jobs to the USA.

This would be a non-issue in the US if we adopted the Fair Tax Plan ( http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main ) or something similar.

You can only do two things with money; spend it or invest it. Under a Fair Tax Plan you are always paying your "fair share" of taxes whenever you buy something. Even underground economies must buy stuff, so the illegal proceeds of various endeavors still generate a "fair share".

When you place your money for investment, you create the means for producing goods and services. (Remember, even putting it in the bank is a type of investment in the economy.)

The questions of "due process", personal privacy and interfering with sovereign nations disappear if there is no basis for tax evasion. People who sell and buy underground to avoid paying the taxes would then be committing tax fraud, and that is a "serious crime" and does not come under the protection of Swiss bank secrecy.

I know nothing about how the tax system in Sydney works, but I've been talking about America. Here, our tax system is nothing but a program to game for political votes through social engineering. IE; creating a system of dependants.

It's as though people who put their faith into the political system to cure their problem look up to our leadership as though only they are the smart and educated ones. Please, don't make me laugh (or cry). Again speaking for America, our politicians are so corrupt it makes the rest of the world innocent by comparison. Yet, we somehow vote these bastards in *face palm*.

As for the flat tax system... The American proposal can be read here. http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

...and nukes other earnings-based taxation schemes and replaces it with a simple prorated sales tax structure. If you wish to pay NO taxes, you may do so by purchasing new goods up to the poverty level (as determined by the census bureau) and used goods (which would not be taxed). The tax rate is controlled by the voters directly under this plan, in that the policies of the elected are directly visible at the cash registers of the electors.

Every legal US citizen is regularly refunded the value of retail taxation--weekly, biweekly, monthly, annually, given to charity--whatever, using the existing systems of social security, welfare and unemployment, etc.

In addition to the elimination of all income taxation, gains taxes are also nuked. This is a major stumble for many, but remember that these wealth holders make major purchases of new goods, which are taxed at the FairTax rate.

The current ballpark is $13,600,000,000,000, trillion with a T, are hiding from taxation overseas. With the FairTax, these thirteen trillion dollars come back home to work for us.

You pay no income taxes. You take home 100% of what you earn. You have more control over your federal government. You pay a 23% tax on new goods up to the poverty line, but the MASSIVE supply-side taxation cost is eliminated from those goods, meaning the price after FairTax is the same. The economy booms because every-friggin-corporation opens up shop in the new tax utopia. Jobs are plentiful.

Don't believe me! Read for yourself!

The FairTax would instantly make the US the world's tax haven.

I agree. The tax code as it stands now is a nightmare. I found out about FairTax when I came across The FairTax Book at the bookstore. I read the whole book in one sitting. Seriously! A book about taxes, and I couldn't put it down. The arguments made in the book seem well thought out and make sense. The general feeling I got was that if this ever became law, the whole world would be abuzz about it and businesses would rush back to America. I would certainly appreciate being able to put my extra money in savings, to get taxed only at such time that I decide to make a purchase, and not having to deal with April 15th. I don't care if FairTax saved me nothing in taxes, it would definitely save hours of clerical work on my part and on my employer's part, and that money would be available to fuel the economy instead. I totally agree with you. Now if only we could get Washington to agree.

Maybe if the US tax policy wasn't insanely out of line with the rest of the world, we wouldn't have this problem. Can you blame these companies for getting away?

Other countries charge income tax based on income earned in that country. The US charges income tax for income earned in any country. Where would you set up your company?

The FairTax would instantly make the US the world's tax haven.

Huckabee might be a talking snake person who believes that the rapture will render all national security interests moot too. Did you see his platform? Memorable note was the politically suicidal attempt to introduce THE FAIR TAX PLAN http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer [grass roots people just like Obama]. He made a political statement, and let a (presumably) more electable candidate have the nomination. He stinks of being RATIONAL, NOT "Talking snake!"

This is nothing. In Ohio, there have ALREADY been, in some counties, more early votes than the total number of people living in those counties!! People are voting 72 times! Voter fraud! This is all being done to elect you-know-who to the presidency and I ain't talking about McCain. Let me tell you something. Unless you want you-know-who to redistribute YOUR wealth, you'd better vote for McCain.

What, you say, he won't redistribute my wealth?! Let me tell you something. Raise taxes on the corporations. For a corporation, a tax is like any other expense. It gets factored into the price of the product they make. Corporations don't actually pay ANYTHING in taxes. They merely collect it from their customers and pay it to the government. So when you buy a loaf of bread, school supplies, new tires for your car, a bag of plant food for your yard, or any other product out there, YOU are actually paying those corporations' taxes for them. Even if you're poor. Because it's factored into the price. In the end, corporations exist on paper and money passes through them -- but it's ALWAYS people who end up footing the bill for taxes. That's why once McCain is in office, we need to convince him to push adoption of the FairTax plan.

Joe the Plumber is absolutely right. If you're a hard-working person and you manage, through your blood, sweat, and tears, and through sacrifices and risk-taking, to arrive at success, and it's DIFFICULT to arrive at success, then you are the rightful owner of what you earn and it is NONE of the government's business to "redistribute" your wealth, "spread" your wealth around. It's your wealth and you decide what to do with it. Not you-know-who, who hangs out with terrorists, radicals, Communists, anti-American people. His friends are upstanding citizens like Reverend "God Damn America" Wright, or Bill "I don't regret setting bombs" Ayers. How about Rashid Kalidi and his buddies (Where is that damn tape that the Los Angeles Times has?) Or any of a zillion other really upstanding citizens who obviously care about the well-being of this country.

So go ahead. Listen to what the "mainstream" media, the biased lying dishonest garbage media, is telling you to do and go vote for you-know-who. Go ahead and let them convince you that your wealth needs redistributing. They're already laughing all the way to the bank, but you won't. Or you can vote for John McCain. I disagree with a lot of his ideas, but you bet your wallet I'm voting for him.

Karl Marx was a stupid idiot. His ideas were wrong then. They are wrong now. And they will always be wrong. The Communist Manifesto is GARBAGE as was Marx's brain. Marx was garbage. Marx was trash. Marx was refuse. Marx was rubbish. Karl Marx. A piece of shit. This is AMERICA people. We don't need any of that Communist garbage here.

It sounds like you need to read The FairTax Plan or check out the website at http://www.fairtax.org. The FairTax would rip the IRS out by its roots, throwing out ALL the IRS taxes and replacing them with a single consumption tax on the final sale of ALL new products and services, no exceptions, no deductions, no special treatment for any particular group of people. The tax base gets expanded from 160 million current taxpayers to 350 million consumers, including people earning money via criminal means who currently evade the tax system, people working under the table, tourists to this country, even government organizations. No one gets special treatment. This takes away tremendous power from Congress, the power to split up and antagonize between different groups of people -- like between rich people and ordinary people. This country is supposed to be unified, not split up in a class struggle. The FairTax levels the playing field and when someone buys something, the total tax she pays is right there on her purchase receipt. And each person will receive ALL of her paycheck. No withholding nonsense. Simple, plain, fair... lots of benefits, little or no compliance costs, the government gets the same revenue as before, the tax burden on each individual is reduced due to the expanded tax base, not to mention tons of investment dollars will flood the U.S. once this country becomes the best tax haven in the world. I really think you'll enjoy reading through that material. The FairTax proposed bill is called HR25 in the House of Representatives and the only way to get this thing passed is if all of us learn about it, tell others about it, and write letters to our representatives in Washington. This is a grassroots effort! Especially since both Obama and McCain claim that Change is coming to Washington. This would be one hell of a change!

You make some good points and obviously a lot of thought (and the time to link to all this stuff) went into it. Thank you for sharing that with us.

You know what I think could have played a BIG role in preventing this mess from taking place? It might seem bizarre to suggest this (and other than being someone interested to see this become reality, I am not "part" of this), but if you're familiar with the proposed so-called FairTax plan, I believe it would do a lot to help the current situation, housing crisis included. Whoa! I just brought up the site linked in the previous sentence to make sure I got the URL right and boom! That site claims the FairTax could help the housing crisis! I swear I did not know that was the case. Ok, I'll go on to say what I was originally going to say:

Briefly this is how the FairTax would work, and skip to the next paragraph if you already know this. The FairTax is a proposed bill, called HR25 in the House of Representatives, is a 133-page bill that replaces the 67,000 pages of our current IRS tax code, shuts down the IRS, and gets rid of all the IRS taxes: income tax, payroll tax, capital gains tax, death tax, etc. It replaces them all with a single nationwide consumption tax on the FINAL sale of ALL new products and services (not intermediate sales like a VAT, and not sales on used products), taxing everything at the same rate, with no exception for any type of product or service (not even food). It is a "Fair" Tax because of this fact: Rich people tend to buy more stuff, so they'll pay more in taxes when they buy all of this stuff. Poor people buy very little, so they'll pay very little. In-between people buy some amount in between, so they'll pay some amount in between. Wait a minute - poor people? They'll pay NOTHING because of a monthly "prebate" sent to all families that want it, reimbursing them, in advance, for any taxation up to poverty level spending. Yup. Poor people pay NOTHING in taxes. This is an improvement over their current situation because the income taxes that corporations pay get factored into the prices of goods. So when a poor person buys a loaf of bread or a light bulb or something, that poor person is paying the corporation's income tax. By getting rid of this retarded tax and setting up a sales tax, for which the poor person is reimbursed up to poverty level spending, you're helping the poor. The tax rate would admittedly be high at 23% if computed inclusive to the price ($23 of $100 is 23% inclusive) which many claim is really 30% (because $77 plus 30% of $77 ($23) is $100). Yes this is steep but remember that this is what our government currently costs us - only the method of collection changes and makes the amount visible for the first time. The idea is that you keep ALL of your paycheck, ALL of your income, and so long as you don't spend money, the government "takes" nothing. You only pay when you're at the cash register and you're spending money anyway. Moreover, the tax base will be broadened since instead of 160 million current taxpayers, there will be 350 million or more consumers, including: People who make money illegally (like drug dealers) who currently pay nothing in taxes but will pay when they buy a new Mercedes with that ill-gotten money. Illegal aliens, who may or may not currently be paying jack. Tourists to this country, who stay at hotels, eat at restaurant, go to Disney Land, etc. So the burden on each individual is reduced. No returns to file unless you're a business. No audits unless you're a business. Instead of dealing with 160 million taxpayers, the government will deal with 25 million businesses. The government will receive the same revenue from this sales tax as from the income tax, but it will be more stable because income fluctuates with the economy but spending tends to be pretty stable (when you don't have income, you spend from your savings - but you still spend). With the U.S. thus becoming the biggest income tax haven in the world, lots of people will bring their money to the Un

The Fair Tax.

I hope this fails rendering the IRS obsolete!

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

I think you forgot that under FairTax, you get a prebate payment to cover the 23% consumption tax to cover the cost of that tax up to the Federally-defined poverty level. You can read about this on this PDF file:

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

As such, that prebate cushions the cost of that 23% tax to poor families.

I'd recommend you go to www.fairtax.org and read up on the various research papers linked to this web site that explains how the entire system works.

So our country goes farther in the hole every day and big companies skip out overseas to avoid paying taxes here. You don't have to be a financial expert to know that just ain't right.

It doesn't have to be this way. Support the fairtax!

I'm sounding like a broken record. Once again, passing of the Fair Tax ( http://www.fairtax.org/ ) would fix this. Our current tax code punishes us as individuals and businesses for making money. The FairTax would turn the U.S. into the world's biggest tax haven, and businesses would be seeking to make the U.S. their home rather than fleeing it.

While I agree it might not hurt to double check I would be concerned about any hard/fast black/white time frames.

I suppose they remind me too much of 'mandatory' sentencing. I would prefer for the expert (the judge) to make an 'informed' decision based on their experience and the individual circumstances rather then be 'forced' into some arbitrary time frame that might not fit the circumstances.

As I write this I realize the court analogy is a poor analogy, as the expert in the real estate situation cannot be considered an impartial third party. The mortgage broker definitely has incentive to make the loan don't they! And that incentive does not work in the consumer's favor does it.

...which takes three weeks, which I know is longer than the home-buying process...remember, the approval is guaranteed...

I would suggest that triggers to approval might be fine, however the time frame would depend on the expert and their firms work load. If the trigger-approval is valid, then no problem, however if the trigger-approval is NOT valid then that process needs to be changed to make it valid.

Mine is probably just as poorly worded, so I will apologize on the front end this time.

Another thought:

You could argue that a lending institution that is going to hold the paper (loan) internally might be trusted more. Since they are not going to 'sell' it to anyone else they are assume more risk. (Thus they have more incentive to make good loans)

A lending institution that never holds any of the paper (they always sell the loan to a third party) might NOT be trusted as much for its loan and might be subjected to more rigid controls and oversight.

If taxpayer money is used (and it will have to be for the economy to be stabilized) I agree that tax payers should benefit down the road as these companies profit.

I have always believed that a portion of our taxes should be 'invested' for our future needs to offset inflation among other factors. Every 'citizen' should have a private fund, invested in this country appropriately for their age (more risk when young, less risk when older) to offset health care costs, retirement, social security, etc.... This fund should be able to be 'passed' to whoever one decides, via a will, last testament or other legal document. Absolutely NEVER should we be taxed a second, third, fourth or more time when we pass away!

Heck pass the Fairtax and most of our problems will be taken care of. The FairTax has been stuck by both the Democrats and Republicans (both House and Congress) in committee since 1996. Why have they prevented it from coming to a floor vote by holding it in committee for 10 years? Ask yourself why you did not know about it until you read this? Time to get it out and pass it for the country's benefit! (It will create jobs! The FairTax Replaces the entire current tax code with 8 pages of easily understood tax rules and regulations! The FairTax will provide more money for the government, but not necessarily more from each of us - illegal activities will result in taxes being paid. You really need to check it out and talk to your representatives - they know about it even if you do not!)

If any elected official attempts to miss use the funds of any appropriation (make a grab for the money for any other purpose as they usually do), could you not argue that they are violating their oath to 'protect the constitution' while in office.

I am assuming, like the president, their 'oath of office' stipulates that they protect the constitution.

While I agree it might not hurt to double check I would be concerned about any hard/fast black/white time frames.

I suppose they remind me too much of 'mandatory' sentencing. I would prefer for the expert (the judge) to make an 'informed' decision based on their experience and the individual circumstances rather then be 'forced' into some arbitrary time frame that might not fit the circumstances.

As I write this I realize the court analogy is a poor analogy, as the expert in the real estate situation cannot be considered an impartial third party. The mortgage broker definitely has incentive to make the loan don't they! And that incentive does not work in the consumer's favor does it.

...which takes three weeks, which I know is longer than the home-buying process...remember, the approval is guaranteed...

I would suggest that triggers to approval might be fine, however the time frame would depend on the expert and their firms work load. If the trigger-approval is valid, then no problem, however if the trigger-approval is NOT valid then that process needs to be changed to make it valid.

Mine is probably just as poorly worded, so I will apologize on the front end this time.

Another thought:

You could argue that a lending institution that is going to hold the paper (loan) internally might be trusted more. Since they are not going to 'sell' it to anyone else they are assume more risk. (Thus they have more incentive to make good loans)

A lending institution that never holds any of the paper (they always sell the loan to a third party) might NOT be trusted as much for its loan and might be subjected to more rigid controls and oversight.

If taxpayer money is used (and it will have to be for the economy to be stabilized) I agree that tax payers should benefit down the road as these companies profit.

I have always believed that a portion of our taxes should be 'invested' for our future needs to offset inflation among other factors. Every 'citizen' should have a private fund, invested in this country appropriately for their age (more risk when young, less risk when older) to offset health care costs, retirement, social security, etc.... This fund should be able to be 'passed' to whoever one decides, via a will, last testament or other legal document. Absolutely NEVER should we be taxed a second, third, fourth or more time when we pass away!

Heck pass the Fairtax and most of our problems will be taken care of. The FairTax has been stuck by both the Democrats and Republicans (both House and Congress) in committee since 1996. Why have they prevented it from coming to a floor vote by holding it in committee for 10 years? Ask yourself why you did not know about it until you read this? Time to get it out and pass it for the country's benefit! (It will create jobs! The FairTax Replaces the entire current tax code with 8 pages of easily understood tax rules and regulations! The FairTax will provide more money for the government, but not necessarily more from each of us - illegal activities will result in taxes being paid. You really need to check it out and talk to your representatives - they know about it even if you do not!)

If any elected official attempts to miss use the funds of any appropriation (make a grab for the money for any other purpose as they usually do), could you not argue that they are violating their oath to 'protect the constitution' while in office.

I am assuming, like the president, their 'oath of office' stipulates that they protect the constitution.

the FairTax would solve the problem of companies fleeing the US for less punishing taxation.

thats why the government does not want fair tax. fair tax = no control support fairtax http://www.fairtax.org/

Companies don't pay income tax, individuals do

Yeah, they do. In most cases it's a whole lot more than individual income tax too. For companies that do over 18 million it's 35%. It's around 15% for companies that do under 50,000.

You can't assume the company will lower people's wages to "even out" the money the people are no longer paying in income tax, since they're now paying the same tax on purchases - incomes must remain (comparative to prices) the same as they are, regardless of whether there's a direct tax on them or not.

Individual income wouldn't change. The thing to remember here is that prices at the "store" don't change. From FairTax.org

Americans who produce goods and earn wages must pay significant tax and compliance costs under the current federal income tax. These taxes and costs both reduce after-tax wages and profits and are then passed on to the consumers of those goods and services in the form of price increases. When the FairTax removes income, capital gains, payroll, and estate and gift taxes, the pre-FairTax prices of these goods and services will fall. The removal of these hidden taxes may also allow wages to rise. Exactly how much prices will fall and wages will rise depends on market forces. For example, in a profession with many jobs and too few to fill them, wages will likely increase more than in fields where there are too many employees and not enough jobs.

I want to visit the US and stay in a hotel while I'm there. Currently, the hotel will charge me $200 a night. The new tax system comes in, and the hotel price rises to $260 a night. This makes no difference to people earning money in the US, since their "take home pay" has increased an equivalent amount. However, for ME, I'm paying $60 a night more, which is pretty substantial.

Nope. You still pay $200/night. It may even go down. The beauty is though, now you're contributing to the tax base for us. (which is fair too since you are participating in the greatness that the tax dollars fund)

Stewart is a pretentious ass who looks down and mocks conservatives. Colbert does the same, just in character. Conservatives aren't invited to share views, they're invited as fodder for ridicule.

You don't know what the hell you're talking about. Stewart treats conservatives (and liberals) a lot more respectfully than many of them deserve. Have you even watched the show? Do you ever think before you talk? Are you completely devoid of rationality?

Support the Fair Tax. http://fairtax.org/

Ohhhh, guess you are completely devoid of rationality.

haha. This is why the fairtax will never pass. Congress would never vote for a bill to raise taxes on themselves.

You have evidently been listening to the media about the Fair Tax. You should really investigate what it is before judging it. Try reading some of the economist analysis and what it really means. You can easily do some research on it by going to http://www.fairtax.org/

As for Huckabee? Do you honestly believe a president can force a theocracy down the throats of a nation? I'm pretty sure he doesn't believe that. However, he is shrewd enough to know where his base is and I'm sure that he plays up his Christianity to consolidate it.