Slashdot Mirror

Could this be a sign that we should switch to a form of taxation that doesn't require state and federal agencies to keep personal info on every American citizen?

5. Using a system of taxation that requires personal information on every tax payer, instead of one that doesn't

Hey, maybe we should switch to a form of taxation that doesn't require state and federal agencies to keep personal info on every American citizen

The reason why companies outsource is simple -- to lower their tax liability. With FTE's, you have to pay FICA, Social Security, Medicare and other payroll taxes. If you outsource (whether keeping it in the country or not), you can deduct the whole shebang as a cost of doing business. I'm sure there are small savings to outsourcing in addition to the tax savings -- but they're nothing like what proponents claim. Administration and overhead increase as a result of outsourcing, negating a lot of the savings. Now I hope nobody mods me as a Troll or Flamebait or anything, but there is a possible solution to all of this -- ***REFORM THE TAX SYSTEM IN THIS COUNRY!!!!*** ... I am a proponent of the FairTax, which would abolish the IRS, repeal the 16th amendment, and take us to a consumption tax where the costs of government are visible for all to see. Take a look at it. You just might like it.

You conveniently leave out the cost that the American Taxpayer pays in costs of healthcare, food stamps and other services these people dont pay for.

Which means your one dollar head of lettuce doesnt cost one dollar and that cheap labour isnt so cheap.

If these people were legal and paid 15$ instead of 5$ an hour, the cost of lettuce wouldnt go up that much and the money they would pay in taxes into our system would offset some of the freebies they recieve from that system.

Of course I am for the FairTax, http://www.fairtax.org/, which would tax illegals on everything they bought here regardless if employeers broke the law by hiring them.

Are they ever going to repeal income tax
Maybe someday, if people get mad enough and fight for change

Great.
When the tax is instituted, you have to pay it or men with guns come to your home.

When the tax is repealed, you have to fill out a form to get your money back. That's fair.

Why not just repeal the whole damn thing and replace it with something that makes more sense?

You don't need to bring up the list of the unlimited ways someone can circumvent the new tax system, but be sure and mention ALL of the (few) ways you can with the current system.
From here: ...whereas tax evasion under the current income tax system requires only one person (the payor) to lie on their tax forms, tax evasion under the FairTax requires collusion of both the payor (the retail purchaser) and the payee (the retail seller). Furthermore, the number of individuals required to file taxes drops from approximately 140 million to 20 million. This ~86% drop in the number of collection points will allow the federal tax administration to assess tax fraud with greater scrutiny.

Read more, then reconsider your implied objections. If you still have them, come back and state them explicitly.

Amazing. A national federal sales tax is supposed to eliminate State (i.e. non-federal) income taxes? The issue in TFA is double taxation by two different States, not the Federal government taxing someone twice.

Once again, this is one of many obnoxious pitfalls of income taxes. Support the Fair Tax, both at the federal and state levels.

-jcr

well, more or less, try http://www.fairtax.org/ for a different method of taxation that would not care what state you earned the money in or from.

If passed, the Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act would prevent states from taxing income earned by nonresidents who telecommute to an in-state employer while working from home.
Why not just go all the way and not tax income?

I'm not necessarily arguing for an identifier-free society -- but your arguments against one don't hold water. Given appropriate application of technology, the minimum necessary amounts of information can be provided when appropriate without reference to massive central databases.

I'd rather have some huge crapware business pay taxes than me.
Right now, with our current tax system, both you and the business are paying taxes. Except with corporate income taxes, the corporations raise their prices to foot their bill, passing their tax burden on to you. The FairTax removes corporate income taxes. Then market competition will force them to lower their prices.Then you stop paying for corporate income taxes.

in general, a consumption based tax is <i>regressive</i>
In general, yes. Not with the FairTax, because of the prebate you mentioned, the FairTax is a system that is progressive.

the brunt of the tax will be felt by the middle class
Read up a little more on who are the winners and losers of the FairTax

The more money you make, the more you save[. T]he more you save, the less you consume.
There is a flaw in your logic. If the more money you make is greater than what you plan to save, then you can both save more and consume more. Also read up on what increased saving does to interest rates and how that benefits the whole economy.

A good, clean, progressive income tax (without all these exceptions) is what we need
A common point against the FairTax is that it's a good idea, but it'll never happen. I agree that the likelihood (and more to the point, ease) of getting the FairTax passed isn't its strongest aspect, but it is way more likely than hoping Congress will go thru our current system and plug up all of its thousands of holes. The current system is a whopping steaming piece of shit. It needs to be scrapped an replaced.

Golly, that FairTax thing is looking better everyday.

Maybe so, but the current system is much more prone to abuse. In any case, no system will be perfect, and the fairtax reduces copliance costs by a factor of 100, and also reduces the number of collection points significantly, allowing government to focus their enforcement efforts more efficiently.

2. The arguments that interest rates will fall by 0.25%, and that the costs of all retail goods and services will fall by 20-25% are really, really tenuous, at best, and they are integral into the supposedly neutral effects of the change.

I assume you have research to back up your statements?

Please refer to these documents for more information. Americans for Fair Taxation (creators of the FairTax) was founded as a research organization, and is supported by research from places such as Stanford, MIT and Harvard.

This public policy paper by the CATO Institute on a national sales tax specifically refers the the drop in interest rates. The revenue-neutrality refers only to the fact that the FairTax would raise no more or less revenue than the current system, while reducing compliance costs and broadening the tax base. This reduction in costs is where the savings comes in, hence the reduction in prices and interest rates.

3. The issue with new homes versus existing homes seems fishy, at best. The market doesn't work that way.

I one again refer you to the research on the effect to the housing market.

Maybe so, but the current system is much more prone to abuse. In any case, no system will be perfect, and the fairtax reduces copliance costs by a factor of 100, and also reduces the number of collection points significantly, allowing government to focus their enforcement efforts more efficiently.

2. The arguments that interest rates will fall by 0.25%, and that the costs of all retail goods and services will fall by 20-25% are really, really tenuous, at best, and they are integral into the supposedly neutral effects of the change.

I assume you have research to back up your statements?

Please refer to these documents for more information. Americans for Fair Taxation (creators of the FairTax) was founded as a research organization, and is supported by research from places such as Stanford, MIT and Harvard.

This public policy paper by the CATO Institute on a national sales tax specifically refers the the drop in interest rates. The revenue-neutrality refers only to the fact that the FairTax would raise no more or less revenue than the current system, while reducing compliance costs and broadening the tax base. This reduction in costs is where the savings comes in, hence the reduction in prices and interest rates.

3. The issue with new homes versus existing homes seems fishy, at best. The market doesn't work that way.

I one again refer you to the research on the effect to the housing market.

The real problem is with the IRS and the tax system itself....

http://www.fairtax.org/

This abolishes the IRS and thus gives Americans and businesses alike no advantage to storing money overseas so it brings it back into the economy...

It's not a perfect system, but its far better then the convoluted and counterproductive tax system we have now.

Abolish the IRS and get the government out of the business of spying on taxpaying citizens.

The FairTaxproposal is a comprehensive plan to replace federal income and payroll taxes, including personal, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security/Medicare, self-employment, and corporate taxes. The FairTax proposal integrates such features as a progressive national retail sales tax, dollar-for-dollar revenue replacement, and a rebate to ensure that no American pays such federal taxes up to the poverty level. Included in the FairTax plan is the repeal of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution. The FairTax allows Americans to keep 100 percent of their paychecks (minus any state income taxes), ends corporate taxes and compliance costs hidden in the retail cost of goods and services, and fully funds the federal government while fulfilling the promise of Social Security and Medicare.

Americans take home their whole paychecks.
Not only do more Americans have jobs, but they also take home 100 percent of their paychecks (except where state income taxes apply). No federal income taxes or payroll taxes are withheld from paychecks, pensions, or Social Security checks.

No federal sales tax up to the poverty level means progressivity like today's tax system.
To ensure no American pays tax on necessities, the FairTax plan provides a prepaid, monthly rebate (prebate) for every registered household to cover the consumption tax spent on necessities up to the federal poverty level. This, along with several other features, is how the FairTax completely untaxes the poor, lowers the tax burden on most, while making the overall rate progressive. However, the FairTax is progressive based on lifestyle/spending choices, rather than simply punishing those taxpayers who are successful. Do you see how much freer life is with the FairTax instead of the income tax?

No tax on used goods. The amount you pay to fund the government is totally visible.
With the FairTax you are only taxed once on any good or service; the sales tax is charged just as state sales taxes are today. If you choose to buy used goods - used car, used home, used appliances - you do not pay the FairTax. If, as a business owner or farmer, you buy something for strictly business purposes (not for personal consumption), you pay no consumption tax. When you decide what to buy and how much to spend, you see exactly how much you are contributing to the government with each purchase.

Retail prices no longer hide corporate taxes or their compliance costs, which drive up costs for those who can least afford to pay.
Did you know that hidden income taxes and the cost of complying with them currently make up 20 percent or more percent of all retail prices? It's true. According to Dr. Dale Jorgenson of Harvard University, hidden income taxes are passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices for everything you buy. If competition does not allow prices to rise, corporations lower labor costs, again hurting those who can least afford to lose their jobs. Finally, if prices are as high as competition allows and labor costs are as low as practical, profits/dividends to shareholders are driven down, thereby hurting retirement savings for moms-and-pops and pension funds invested in Corporate America. With the FairTax, the sham of corporate taxation ends, competition drives prices down, more people in America have jobs, and retirement/pension funds see improved performance.

The income tax exports our jobs, rather than our products. The FairTax brings jobs home.
Most importantly, the FairTax does not burden U.S. exports the way the current income tax system does. The FairTax removes the cost of corporate taxes and compliance costs from the cost of U.S. exports, putting U.S. exports on a level playing field with foreign competitors. Lower prices sharply increase demand for U.S. exports, thereby increasing job creation i

http://www.fairtax.org/

How about changing the tax system to a comsumption tax vice an income based tax system. This would eliminate the complication of trying to determine how much someone makes. You pay the tax when you actualy try to use the money or in this case try to move the money outside of the United States.

We need to get rid of the IRS altogether and replace it with the FairTax.

The FairTax would replace the complex and difficult to understand federal income tax with a fair and simple national sales tax.

Under the FairTax, Americans will take home 100% of their paychecks, allowing them to save more money for education and retirement, as well as make investments that will stimulate our economy. Not only will American workers take home their whole paychecks, each registered household will receive a monthly "prebate" check to refund taxes paid on necessities. This combination of sales tax and monthly prebate makes the FairTax the only tax proposal that completely "untaxes" the poor.

The FairTax is revenue neutral. While the American worker has everything to gain under this new system of taxation, the government will lose nothing in federal funding.

The current system of taxation is beyond repair. Compliance is difficult and expensive, often prohibitively so for aspiring small businesses.

The FairTax taxes consumption.
And one acquire things to consume with...income? Not necessarily. With resources - ie, wealth (unless you're the government, or a thief, in which case it is done with force).

you can find people there to support all manner of crackpot schemes
This doesn't mean that there cannot be someone among the crackpots might have a good idea.

I don't see that they found one to support the FairTax.
Just as an example of one of the many places you'll find them supporting it, if you take the time to do some reading:
From Dr. Jorgenson of Harvard's Department of Economics, in this document
"If we had enacted a FairTax ten years ago, we would each be ten percent better off today."
But like you said, this does nothing to convince you. Some folks are pretty set in their ways...

For the record, I'm old and loaded
In that case, you may find #5 more interesting.

in the long term, I think our economy would collapse
That's interesting- why do you think that?

Yes, I heard that part. I think it's insufficient
You think the prebate is insufficient? Why? And what would be "sufficient" in your opinion? More to the point, how do you define sufficient in this case?

While this back and forth bickering is fun and all
I wouldn't call it bickering, and it's more than useless fun. It's a productive dialouge for exchaning ideas. Thru this record of communication, I'm getting an understanding of why people oppose the FairTax, while others (and maybe you) are coming to learn why one should support it.

who pays more than they do under our current system, and why is that a good idea?
First, I'd refer you to #8, then to go a step further and answer your question about where does all the money come from to make it revenue neutral: It comes from those who don't pay income taxes now- drug dealers, the porn industry, special interests and income tax loophole exploiters and the like. As they begin paying taxes thru the national retail sale tax, they pick up the slack that they've been eluding in our current system.
As for why is this a good idea- because it's fair.

The FairTax taxes consumption.
And one acquire things to consume with...income? Not necessarily. With resources - ie, wealth (unless you're the government, or a thief, in which case it is done with force).

you can find people there to support all manner of crackpot schemes
This doesn't mean that there cannot be someone among the crackpots might have a good idea.

I don't see that they found one to support the FairTax.
Just as an example of one of the many places you'll find them supporting it, if you take the time to do some reading:
From Dr. Jorgenson of Harvard's Department of Economics, in this document
"If we had enacted a FairTax ten years ago, we would each be ten percent better off today."
But like you said, this does nothing to convince you. Some folks are pretty set in their ways...

For the record, I'm old and loaded
In that case, you may find #5 more interesting.

in the long term, I think our economy would collapse
That's interesting- why do you think that?

Yes, I heard that part. I think it's insufficient
You think the prebate is insufficient? Why? And what would be "sufficient" in your opinion? More to the point, how do you define sufficient in this case?

While this back and forth bickering is fun and all
I wouldn't call it bickering, and it's more than useless fun. It's a productive dialouge for exchaning ideas. Thru this record of communication, I'm getting an understanding of why people oppose the FairTax, while others (and maybe you) are coming to learn why one should support it.

who pays more than they do under our current system, and why is that a good idea?
First, I'd refer you to #8, then to go a step further and answer your question about where does all the money come from to make it revenue neutral: It comes from those who don't pay income taxes now- drug dealers, the porn industry, special interests and income tax loophole exploiters and the like. As they begin paying taxes thru the national retail sale tax, they pick up the slack that they've been eluding in our current system.
As for why is this a good idea- because it's fair.

The FairTax taxes consumption.
And one acquire things to consume with...income? Not necessarily. With resources - ie, wealth (unless you're the government, or a thief, in which case it is done with force).

you can find people there to support all manner of crackpot schemes
This doesn't mean that there cannot be someone among the crackpots might have a good idea.

I don't see that they found one to support the FairTax.
Just as an example of one of the many places you'll find them supporting it, if you take the time to do some reading:
From Dr. Jorgenson of Harvard's Department of Economics, in this document
"If we had enacted a FairTax ten years ago, we would each be ten percent better off today."
But like you said, this does nothing to convince you. Some folks are pretty set in their ways...

For the record, I'm old and loaded
In that case, you may find #5 more interesting.

in the long term, I think our economy would collapse
That's interesting- why do you think that?

Yes, I heard that part. I think it's insufficient
You think the prebate is insufficient? Why? And what would be "sufficient" in your opinion? More to the point, how do you define sufficient in this case?

While this back and forth bickering is fun and all
I wouldn't call it bickering, and it's more than useless fun. It's a productive dialouge for exchaning ideas. Thru this record of communication, I'm getting an understanding of why people oppose the FairTax, while others (and maybe you) are coming to learn why one should support it.

who pays more than they do under our current system, and why is that a good idea?
First, I'd refer you to #8, then to go a step further and answer your question about where does all the money come from to make it revenue neutral: It comes from those who don't pay income taxes now- drug dealers, the porn industry, special interests and income tax loophole exploiters and the like. As they begin paying taxes thru the national retail sale tax, they pick up the slack that they've been eluding in our current system.
As for why is this a good idea- because it's fair.

I always include at least one gramatical error in every post
Nice. I'll start making posts with 5 facts, one of which will always be lie, just to see who catches it. It'll be fun.

How do I know you didn't earn your rich grandma's money that you stand to inherit?
Oh I see, in this hypothetical you were assuming that I'd be inheriting my granny's money. An understandable mistake, but an incorrect assumption nonetheless.

spend on average about twice as much .. despite making 5+ times as much.
So it's not enough for you that under the FairTax, they spend more and thus would be paying more taxes while the poor are completely relieved of any tax burden up to the poverty line. No, for the FairTax to work, the rich must spend as much as they make- from each according to their ability and all that, eh?

nor does your link lead to any I can find
Fine, I'll do the digging for you:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Start with #6-it should be particularly interesting to you, although it's more heavy on facts than on figures.
Those are all the ones I could find that would be somewhat pertinent to this discussion. Searching around will show you lots of other aspects that you may find interesting as well.

Give me a realistic theory why a sales tax doesn't move the tax burden away from the wealthy toward the working class
I take you haven't heard about the prebate part of the plan that removes all tax liability up to the poverty level?
Have you considered reading The FairTax book?

I always include at least one gramatical error in every post
Nice. I'll start making posts with 5 facts, one of which will always be lie, just to see who catches it. It'll be fun.

How do I know you didn't earn your rich grandma's money that you stand to inherit?
Oh I see, in this hypothetical you were assuming that I'd be inheriting my granny's money. An understandable mistake, but an incorrect assumption nonetheless.

spend on average about twice as much .. despite making 5+ times as much.
So it's not enough for you that under the FairTax, they spend more and thus would be paying more taxes while the poor are completely relieved of any tax burden up to the poverty line. No, for the FairTax to work, the rich must spend as much as they make- from each according to their ability and all that, eh?

nor does your link lead to any I can find
Fine, I'll do the digging for you:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Start with #6-it should be particularly interesting to you, although it's more heavy on facts than on figures.
Those are all the ones I could find that would be somewhat pertinent to this discussion. Searching around will show you lots of other aspects that you may find interesting as well.

Give me a realistic theory why a sales tax doesn't move the tax burden away from the wealthy toward the working class
I take you haven't heard about the prebate part of the plan that removes all tax liability up to the poverty level?
Have you considered reading The FairTax book?

I always include at least one gramatical error in every post
Nice. I'll start making posts with 5 facts, one of which will always be lie, just to see who catches it. It'll be fun.

How do I know you didn't earn your rich grandma's money that you stand to inherit?
Oh I see, in this hypothetical you were assuming that I'd be inheriting my granny's money. An understandable mistake, but an incorrect assumption nonetheless.

spend on average about twice as much .. despite making 5+ times as much.
So it's not enough for you that under the FairTax, they spend more and thus would be paying more taxes while the poor are completely relieved of any tax burden up to the poverty line. No, for the FairTax to work, the rich must spend as much as they make- from each according to their ability and all that, eh?

nor does your link lead to any I can find
Fine, I'll do the digging for you:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Start with #6-it should be particularly interesting to you, although it's more heavy on facts than on figures.
Those are all the ones I could find that would be somewhat pertinent to this discussion. Searching around will show you lots of other aspects that you may find interesting as well.

Give me a realistic theory why a sales tax doesn't move the tax burden away from the wealthy toward the working class
I take you haven't heard about the prebate part of the plan that removes all tax liability up to the poverty level?
Have you considered reading The FairTax book?

I always include at least one gramatical error in every post
Nice. I'll start making posts with 5 facts, one of which will always be lie, just to see who catches it. It'll be fun.

How do I know you didn't earn your rich grandma's money that you stand to inherit?
Oh I see, in this hypothetical you were assuming that I'd be inheriting my granny's money. An understandable mistake, but an incorrect assumption nonetheless.

spend on average about twice as much .. despite making 5+ times as much.
So it's not enough for you that under the FairTax, they spend more and thus would be paying more taxes while the poor are completely relieved of any tax burden up to the poverty line. No, for the FairTax to work, the rich must spend as much as they make- from each according to their ability and all that, eh?

nor does your link lead to any I can find
Fine, I'll do the digging for you:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Start with #6-it should be particularly interesting to you, although it's more heavy on facts than on figures.
Those are all the ones I could find that would be somewhat pertinent to this discussion. Searching around will show you lots of other aspects that you may find interesting as well.

Give me a realistic theory why a sales tax doesn't move the tax burden away from the wealthy toward the working class
I take you haven't heard about the prebate part of the plan that removes all tax liability up to the poverty level?
Have you considered reading The FairTax book?

I always include at least one gramatical error in every post
Nice. I'll start making posts with 5 facts, one of which will always be lie, just to see who catches it. It'll be fun.

How do I know you didn't earn your rich grandma's money that you stand to inherit?
Oh I see, in this hypothetical you were assuming that I'd be inheriting my granny's money. An understandable mistake, but an incorrect assumption nonetheless.

spend on average about twice as much .. despite making 5+ times as much.
So it's not enough for you that under the FairTax, they spend more and thus would be paying more taxes while the poor are completely relieved of any tax burden up to the poverty line. No, for the FairTax to work, the rich must spend as much as they make- from each according to their ability and all that, eh?

nor does your link lead to any I can find
Fine, I'll do the digging for you:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Start with #6-it should be particularly interesting to you, although it's more heavy on facts than on figures.
Those are all the ones I could find that would be somewhat pertinent to this discussion. Searching around will show you lots of other aspects that you may find interesting as well.

Give me a realistic theory why a sales tax doesn't move the tax burden away from the wealthy toward the working class
I take you haven't heard about the prebate part of the plan that removes all tax liability up to the poverty level?
Have you considered reading The FairTax book?

I always include at least one gramatical error in every post
Nice. I'll start making posts with 5 facts, one of which will always be lie, just to see who catches it. It'll be fun.

How do I know you didn't earn your rich grandma's money that you stand to inherit?
Oh I see, in this hypothetical you were assuming that I'd be inheriting my granny's money. An understandable mistake, but an incorrect assumption nonetheless.

spend on average about twice as much .. despite making 5+ times as much.
So it's not enough for you that under the FairTax, they spend more and thus would be paying more taxes while the poor are completely relieved of any tax burden up to the poverty line. No, for the FairTax to work, the rich must spend as much as they make- from each according to their ability and all that, eh?

nor does your link lead to any I can find
Fine, I'll do the digging for you:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Start with #6-it should be particularly interesting to you, although it's more heavy on facts than on figures.
Those are all the ones I could find that would be somewhat pertinent to this discussion. Searching around will show you lots of other aspects that you may find interesting as well.

Give me a realistic theory why a sales tax doesn't move the tax burden away from the wealthy toward the working class
I take you haven't heard about the prebate part of the plan that removes all tax liability up to the poverty level?
Have you considered reading The FairTax book?

I always include at least one gramatical error in every post
Nice. I'll start making posts with 5 facts, one of which will always be lie, just to see who catches it. It'll be fun.

How do I know you didn't earn your rich grandma's money that you stand to inherit?
Oh I see, in this hypothetical you were assuming that I'd be inheriting my granny's money. An understandable mistake, but an incorrect assumption nonetheless.

spend on average about twice as much .. despite making 5+ times as much.
So it's not enough for you that under the FairTax, they spend more and thus would be paying more taxes while the poor are completely relieved of any tax burden up to the poverty line. No, for the FairTax to work, the rich must spend as much as they make- from each according to their ability and all that, eh?

nor does your link lead to any I can find
Fine, I'll do the digging for you:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Start with #6-it should be particularly interesting to you, although it's more heavy on facts than on figures.
Those are all the ones I could find that would be somewhat pertinent to this discussion. Searching around will show you lots of other aspects that you may find interesting as well.

Give me a realistic theory why a sales tax doesn't move the tax burden away from the wealthy toward the working class
I take you haven't heard about the prebate part of the plan that removes all tax liability up to the poverty level?
Have you considered reading The FairTax book?

I always include at least one gramatical error in every post
Nice. I'll start making posts with 5 facts, one of which will always be lie, just to see who catches it. It'll be fun.

How do I know you didn't earn your rich grandma's money that you stand to inherit?
Oh I see, in this hypothetical you were assuming that I'd be inheriting my granny's money. An understandable mistake, but an incorrect assumption nonetheless.

spend on average about twice as much .. despite making 5+ times as much.
So it's not enough for you that under the FairTax, they spend more and thus would be paying more taxes while the poor are completely relieved of any tax burden up to the poverty line. No, for the FairTax to work, the rich must spend as much as they make- from each according to their ability and all that, eh?

nor does your link lead to any I can find
Fine, I'll do the digging for you:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Start with #6-it should be particularly interesting to you, although it's more heavy on facts than on figures.
Those are all the ones I could find that would be somewhat pertinent to this discussion. Searching around will show you lots of other aspects that you may find interesting as well.

Give me a realistic theory why a sales tax doesn't move the tax burden away from the wealthy toward the working class
I take you haven't heard about the prebate part of the plan that removes all tax liability up to the poverty level?
Have you considered reading The FairTax book?

I always include at least one gramatical error in every post
Nice. I'll start making posts with 5 facts, one of which will always be lie, just to see who catches it. It'll be fun.

How do I know you didn't earn your rich grandma's money that you stand to inherit?
Oh I see, in this hypothetical you were assuming that I'd be inheriting my granny's money. An understandable mistake, but an incorrect assumption nonetheless.

spend on average about twice as much .. despite making 5+ times as much.
So it's not enough for you that under the FairTax, they spend more and thus would be paying more taxes while the poor are completely relieved of any tax burden up to the poverty line. No, for the FairTax to work, the rich must spend as much as they make- from each according to their ability and all that, eh?

nor does your link lead to any I can find
Fine, I'll do the digging for you:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Start with #6-it should be particularly interesting to you, although it's more heavy on facts than on figures.
Those are all the ones I could find that would be somewhat pertinent to this discussion. Searching around will show you lots of other aspects that you may find interesting as well.

Give me a realistic theory why a sales tax doesn't move the tax burden away from the wealthy toward the working class
I take you haven't heard about the prebate part of the plan that removes all tax liability up to the poverty level?
Have you considered reading The FairTax book?

I always include at least one gramatical error in every post
Nice. I'll start making posts with 5 facts, one of which will always be lie, just to see who catches it. It'll be fun.

How do I know you didn't earn your rich grandma's money that you stand to inherit?
Oh I see, in this hypothetical you were assuming that I'd be inheriting my granny's money. An understandable mistake, but an incorrect assumption nonetheless.

spend on average about twice as much .. despite making 5+ times as much.
So it's not enough for you that under the FairTax, they spend more and thus would be paying more taxes while the poor are completely relieved of any tax burden up to the poverty line. No, for the FairTax to work, the rich must spend as much as they make- from each according to their ability and all that, eh?

nor does your link lead to any I can find
Fine, I'll do the digging for you:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Start with #6-it should be particularly interesting to you, although it's more heavy on facts than on figures.
Those are all the ones I could find that would be somewhat pertinent to this discussion. Searching around will show you lots of other aspects that you may find interesting as well.

Give me a realistic theory why a sales tax doesn't move the tax burden away from the wealthy toward the working class
I take you haven't heard about the prebate part of the plan that removes all tax liability up to the poverty level?
Have you considered reading The FairTax book?

I always include at least one gramatical error in every post
Nice. I'll start making posts with 5 facts, one of which will always be lie, just to see who catches it. It'll be fun.

How do I know you didn't earn your rich grandma's money that you stand to inherit?
Oh I see, in this hypothetical you were assuming that I'd be inheriting my granny's money. An understandable mistake, but an incorrect assumption nonetheless.

spend on average about twice as much .. despite making 5+ times as much.
So it's not enough for you that under the FairTax, they spend more and thus would be paying more taxes while the poor are completely relieved of any tax burden up to the poverty line. No, for the FairTax to work, the rich must spend as much as they make- from each according to their ability and all that, eh?

nor does your link lead to any I can find
Fine, I'll do the digging for you:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Start with #6-it should be particularly interesting to you, although it's more heavy on facts than on figures.
Those are all the ones I could find that would be somewhat pertinent to this discussion. Searching around will show you lots of other aspects that you may find interesting as well.

Give me a realistic theory why a sales tax doesn't move the tax burden away from the wealthy toward the working class
I take you haven't heard about the prebate part of the plan that removes all tax liability up to the poverty level?
Have you considered reading The FairTax book?

I want to sock it to you, who I know didn't!
This is a joke, right? You didn't just seriously use a nominative pronoun where an objective pronoun should have gone, did you?
And how do you know I didn't?

Wealthy people do not consume more proportional to their greater net worth, not even close.
Got any figures to back that up? While you were skimming the site, did you happen upon the figures from the MIT and Harvard economists?

Either you're acting as a parody of fools or you're really being serious. If it's the latter, let me know when you're more read up on what you're talking about.

Yes, ALL freeloaders. Corporation, or citizens...makes no difference to me. While were at it, get rid of the IRS. It's a bloated orginization whos only purpose is to provide a means of architecting society. Such an orginization provides *power* to the politicians in office to get re-elected.

Want fair? Support http://www.fairtax.org/

Let's bring every tax-shelter-seeking company in the world back home... http://www.fairtax.org/

This is a function of the income tax itself.

It's high time we abolished the IRS and instituted the National Retail Sales Tax: http://www.fairtax.org/

At a certain point (generally at about $100k), the vast majority people quickly stop consuming their income and start hoarding it. Oh sure, some will burn through it on booze, drugs and hookers, but most start shoving that capital back into capital.

Which is otherwise known as "investing", which is generally a good thing, providing money for loans, growing businesses, etc.

"The higher that income gets, the smaller the percentage of it that is consumed. So, your "fair" tax would, dollar-for-dollar, tax someone making $100k the same as someone making $1M

So what? If a millionare wants to reign in his spending to match that of someone making $100K, so what? You may be interested in: http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/faq-main.htm l#48

...and I got news for you, that "used property" exclusion? Well, they ain't makin' any new land, so guess what will happen to the price of dirt? Well, until we're vacationing on the Moon.

But they are, of course, making new houses and other buildings. You might be interested in: http://www.fairtax.org/pdfs/TreatmentOFhousing.pdf

"We need 2.5T to keep the proverbial lights on in the federal government. You WILL PAY FOR IT SOMEHOW."

The Fair Tax has been set up with an initial rate of 23%, which is calculated to directly replace the funds currently used to keep the lights on by the Federal Income Tax.

"A "prebate?" So, everyone gets a monthly check for the taxes on the first $14k of income, assumed to be consumed? Gah... That is going to eliminate the bureaucracy precisely HOW?"

The prebate has nothing to do with income. You might be interested in: http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/faq-main.htm l#3

"Business purposes = no tax? Again, people nearing or exceeding $100k routinely put their entire damned lives on Schedule C (or into corporations) for exactly this purpose."

This is a valid area for concern. But remember, people cheat on their taxes today. The goal of the Fair Tax isn't to make a more cheat-proof system (though I believe it does just that), but rather to make a simpler, fairer system of taxation.

Steve

As if there's not enough trouble already with identity fraud & getting Social Security numbers of folks.

What dingbat at the IRS thought this was a good idea?

You know, one side effect of this is that it might accelerate the Flat Tax.

Put an end to the IRS gathering this information on every single person on the country. Support the FairTax.

-jcr

Just ask anyone who's tried to organize a 501 (c)(3) corporation. We do NOT need IRS involved in deciding what is or isn't open-source software.

Lobbying for little tax breaks here and there simply perpetuates the problems of the tax system being used as an instrument of policy.

There's a better way.

-jcr

Instead of supporting the further degeneration of a broken tax system, how about supporting a better one altogether? http://fairtax.org/ http://fairtaxgroups.com/

But, I imagine that the quote means that if you care about the fate of other people and want to help out through enforced systems like taxes, that you have an "emotional disorder"? That's, well... frankly a sick way of thinking. If you don't care about other people, you have failed as a human being.

There's a big difference between your being charitable of your own free will, and your being forced to be charitable at gun-point.

The latter is how taxes work (don't believe me, try to stop paying them).

Most people, if they had the 50% of their income back that the government is stealing at gun-point, would choose to donate a portion of it to a charity. A great example of how to move in that direction is the Fair Tax, which gives a one-for-one tax credit for charitable donations.

This makes sense as well, because charities tend to be orders of magnitude more efficient with their resources than the government. A charity tends to run with 5-20% overhead in administrative costs. The government runs at about a 50% overhead (granted this figure is from 10 years ago). So by giving citizens a $100 break on their taxes when they donate $100 to charity, the law would actually help the market to maximize efficiency of use of resources (by having a likely large portion of those resources controlled by more efficient charities than the IRS).

(For those who don't know, currently the US tax law gives you a break on the earned amount, not the paid amount, which means the break from donating $100 to charity depends on your tax bracket, but it is safe to say it's around a third, meaning you only get a $33 break on your taxes currently for donating $100 to charity.)

I'm not sure what system of force Marxism uses to support its policies, but I'm sure that it's not all beads and flowers. People have to have a threat in order to compete/succeed/aspire, so I'd imagine the threat is being kicked out of the community if they don't produce.

"Produce" seems to me to be a much more nebulous threat than, "Your monthly quota is to sell $X worth of widgets. One month below and you're on probation; two months below and you're fired." Perhaps the Marxists have strict quotas that they need to fill as well, but that would make them basically the same as capitalists except without private ownership.

And besides, why does not caring about other people make one a failure?

There are other options, you know -- taxes that don't require invasion into personal privacy; this is just one more reason why the personal income tax is broken. See the FairTax for one example.

Just because something is established doesn't mean it's good.

No, you really don't get it.

Walmart as a corporation, just like every other large and small business in the US, simply passes on corporate taxes to the consumers in the price that is charged for a good or service. So the people that constantly whine about how the "big evil" corporations need to pay more in taxes are really just increasing their own taxes indirectly.

And what tax reform are you talking about? The government graciously allowing me to keep more of the money that's mine in the first place isn't any sort of reform nor do I think that adding 5000 pages to the already insanely voluminous tax code is reform in any sense of the word. Real reform means getting rid of the IRS and the income tax in its entirety and replacing it with a consumption tax. The more you consume, the more you pay in taxes. It's that simple. Read the http://fairtax.org/ book -- it's a quite fair solution to the problem of why America and American goods and services aren't competitive in the global market as well as a fair solution to the whole sense-of-entitlement, socialist-welath-redistribution, class warfare and "eat-the-rich" problem that we also have in this country.

I agree with the concept of a free market. The only problem is that there nothing free in our market. The US is kept at a significant disadvantage by our draconian tax system that punishes achievement.

Although it's only one part of the solution, revamping our tax system to make the US competitive in the global marketplace would go a LONG way in solving this problem. And the best way to go about revamping our tax system is the http://fairtax.org/

Another part of the solution would be to find a way to compel other countries to compete fairly and on the same playing field, i.e. removal of the "Japanese Inspection" of American products at their ports and customs stations. If not, perhaps we as Amerians should consider imposing the same anti-competitive tariffs and procedures on THEIR products as they impose on ours.

So the long and short of it is that both the Republicans and the Democrats are both full of it -- their only interest is to maintain their political power by keeping the current idiotic tax system in place whereby they can manipulate public opinion, pander to their particular voting blocs and stay in office. Moving to the Fair Tax would effectively put control of how much tax we as consumers pay in taxes back into our own hands, as well as make American products competitive again, both domestically and abroad, by elimination of the embedded taxes in ALL of our products and services.

This really goes a long way toward making the fair tax seem even better.

http://fairtax.org/

They can be "progressive", if you add in an offset matched to the poverty level, like the FairTax system would. The basic idea is that any taxes on purchases up to the poverty level are refunded, regardless of total spending. That way, if your spending is less than the poverty level, you get a (small) refund; if it's at the poverty level, you pay no net sales taxes. Otherwise, if your spending is above the poverty level, you pay a tax on the difference (not the total amount). The amount of tax paid asymptotically approaches the flat tax level as total spending increases. Also, a sales tax, unlike an income tax, would tend to encourage those with the means to do so to invest their untaxed income in capital (thus increasing production and lowering prices throughout the economy) rather than spend it on taxed consumables.