What gun control? The U.S. is the most armed country in the world.
The second amendment has nothing to do with how armed the US is compared against the rest of the world. It states that the right to bear arms (such as, for example, nuclear warheads) shall not be infringed. Since private ownership of nuclear warheads is prohibited, the right to bear arms is being infringed. Instead of repealing the amendment that guarantees people the right to bear nuclear warheads, our government has chosen a more expedient approach: to simply ignore the law as it is written and instead choose to interpret it to mean the opposite of what it states.
Your rhetoric is disconnected from reality.
I'm not sure how you went from "shall not be infringed" to "shall be the most armed country in the world", but consider that I might not be the one whose rhetoric is disconnected from reality.
You don't give a shit that you deliberately misrepresented what I said?
Also, it's unclear how I'm an apologist, as I don't believe I ever offered any support to the idea that the government ought to engage in deception to enforce laws. Recognizing the facts of reality is not the same as supporting them.
Indeed, I do think the US Constitution is meaningless. Because it is. It explicitly says one thing, and yet the SCOTUS reads something else entirely. We've long since moved away from the US Constitution meaning anything. Regardless of how you feel about "gun control", we should all be capable of recognizing that instead of repealing the second amendment, we've instead decided to pretend that it doesn't exist, as our rights to bear arms have literally been infringed. This is but one example in a nearly endless list of instances where the US Constitution is indeed meaningless.
I suppose you'll take my observation of reality and somehow infer from it that I hate the US Constitution. You're still incapable of rational thought. Please respond with more personal attacks while implicitly acknowledging the validity of my argument.
Either law enforcement will get an exemption from the CFAA or as a society we'll decide that we don't feel comfortable with increasing levels of government power with decreasing levels of oversight.
One of the main reasons we have law enforcement is for deterrence. One reason why people don't break laws is because of the perception that laws are enforced. One of the consequences of law enforcement having a visible presence is deterrence. People are less likely to break laws when they feel they are more likely to suffer consequences for doing so. If a goal of traffic cops was to, for example, prevent people from exceeding posted speed limits, a highly visible presence would accomplish this goal. However, if a goal of traffics is instead to generate revenue, then a highly visible presence would compromise this goal. The actual tactics used by traffic cops would suggest that they value citation revenue over road safety, as they prefer to try to catch people breaking the law rather than prevent them from breaking the law to begin with. While this itself is not deceptive, claims that traffic cops have promotion of road safety as a goal are.
If you don't like it, pressure your elected officials to have it changed. Of course, that won't accomplish anything, but at the very least people should stop complaining as though this type of abuse was illegal. It's not.
I'm sick of folks saying "entrapment" when a criminal is nabbed by any sort of deception. That isn't what entrapment is.
Indeed. In our society, it is perfectly acceptable for law enforcement to engage in deception to do their job. Whether it's cops sitting off the side of the highway at night with their lights turned off waiting for someone to speed by, or FBI agents convincing borderline-retards that they want to blow things up in an effort to get more terrorism arrests, it's all totally legal.
Personally, I find deceptive law enforcement undesirable, if not downright frightening, but the law is what the law is. If you don't like it, pressure your elected officials to have it changed. Of course, that won't accomplish anything, but at the very least people should stop complaining as though this type of abuse was illegal. It's not.
Mærsk has always had a hand in Danish politics and in turn, the politicians have always been happy to make changes in order to keep large Danish-owned companies in-country and integrated into the industrial infrastructure.
But that doesn't say anything about their influence in the politics of other states, nor does it say anything about any attempts by other states to court Maersk's business and integrate them into industrial infrastructure abroad.
Clearly the people at Maersk have run the numbers and decided that despite all the Danish overtures, South Korea made more sense for Maersk. It's unlikely that they chose South Korea out of some sense of charity, obligation, or favoritism. You're arguing, fundamentally, that they should have instead chose Denmark, not based on merit, but out of some sense of charity, obligation, or favoritism. This may have made sense for Danes, but not for Maersk, and likely not for members of the global economy at large.
What if nonlocal businesses are more likely to use Maersk for shipping? Considering that Denmark's economy is quite small compared to the rest of the global economy, it is indeed the case that nonlocal businesses are more likely to use Maersk for shipping, since there are so many more of them. Consequently, your argument that it would be better for Maersk to use local businesses for its own sake doesn't seem valid.
Are you suggesting that Maersk is, today, supported exclusively or primarily by the Danish country, society, and industries? Or merely that they somehow owe an implicit debt to Denmark, and though they are not obligated to repay it, should do so anyway?
The cost of assembly is still present in the cost of finished goods, so buying parts and then paying the assembly cost would still be an effective way of circumventing your proposal unless there's some economy of scale that makes it considerably more expensive to assemble on your own.
In any case, I wasn't saying that a progressive consumption tax is impossible. Merely that the best implementation I can think of involves a wholesale abandonment of economic privacy. I'm sure there are other ways of doing it, but they all have their own flaws that are worse still.
Are you trying to be deliberately disingenuous? You're asking a Danish national why a Danish company shoudn't source work in Denmark if it means less money for a country 1/3 of the way around the globe?
I'm trying to be deliberately disingenuous in the same sense that Socrates was. I'm asking a person of indeterminate nationality why it is objectively better for a shipping company to source work from Denmark than from South Korea.
Have you ever given a family member money? If so, why? That would seem to be valuing the interests of your family over the neighbors you've never met. Do you have a rational basis for doing so?
Rarely, I have, because they asked and I found it appropriate. I've also done the same for friends and for strangers as well. I have not given money to neighbors who I've never met, because they didn't ask me. However, I don't believe I'm valuing interests of people who I've met over those whom I haven't; it's just that people I haven't met yet couldn't have asked me for money (by definition). Is there a reason why you don't consider this to be rational?
Supporting local business tends to increase local business, increasing local business. This is good for business.
Doesn't supporting nonlocal businesses tend to increase nonlocal business? Isn't that also good for business? Is there a reason why you seem to be valuing local business over nonlocal business?
Do Korean shipyards get their ship parts shipped by Maersk?
I don't know. Do Danish shipyards get their ship parts shipped by some South Korean shipping company? I'm not sure how this is relevant.
But it's still outsourcing tasks to the other side of the world, when they could very easily have been solved at home in way that would have been beneficial to both A.P. Møller-Mærsk and Denmark as a whole.
But wouldn't that have been harmful to South Korea? You seem to be valuing the interests of Denmark over the interests of South Korea. Do you have a rational basis for doing so?
You need to read about the "prebate" aspect of the Fair Tax. It eliminates the regression that concerns you.
Nice attempt at dodging my point.
The "prebate" does nothing to affect what percentage of income is spent by the wealthy. The wealthy do not spend their money, and since the Fair Tax is a consumption tax, an overwhelming majority of their gains in wealth (that is today at least subject to some nominal income and capital gains taxes) would go unspent (and untaxed). Under the Fair Tax, the tax burden shouldered by the wealthy would decrease. It would decrease very significantly
If the tax burden on the wealthy is decreased (for the reason I again explained), and the tax burden on the poor is not increased (because of the "prebate" that you try to distract me with), then the logical consequence is that either the tax burden on the middle class is increased or tax revenues are decreased. Since the Fair Tax is being proposed as a way to fully fund the government, the only possible outcome is that the tax burden on the middle class is increased. If you're arguing that the "prebate" is somehow going to help the middle class enough to ensure that their tax burden is not increased, explain how the shortfall in tax revenues from the wealthy will be made up.
I'm calling you out on your attempt to distract from the main issue. Under the Fair Tax, the wealthy see a huge reduction in their tax burden. That's why it's regressive. There's no amount of "prebate" will change that. Your disdain for the currently-broken tax code is causing you to support one that, although simpler, would cause much worse outcomes for our society.
When even those who are critical of the uber-wealthy are still five orders of magnitude too conservative with their estimates of how badly wealth is distributed, it seems that all hope is lost.
Collect revenues equal to or in excess of receipts.
And how does a high income tax promote wealth equality?
It doesn't. I don't believe I argued that it did.
Is this some vindictive punishment against the wealth, who be definition are evil?
Is what some vindictive punishment against the wealth[y]? A high income tax? Wouldn't a high income tax be more of a "vindictive punishment against" anyone who generates income? Why are you singling out the wealthy? They're impacted exactly as much by a high income tax as is anyone else who generates income. Also, why are you defining the wealthy to be evil?
By destroying innovation and driving away high performers away?
Are you claiming that a consequence of a high income tax is the destruction of innovation and the driving away of high performers? I'm not sure what this has to do with anything I've said, but I'm not sure how tax policy can directly "destroy innovation". Also, you're conflating "high performers" with those with high incomes. While it's likely that a high income tax will drive high income individuals away (to what extent is highly debatable), I don't see why it would have any impact on "high performers".
France's 75% income tax rate plus its wealth tax is doing that quite well.
Just like the USA's 90+% income tax rate did that between 1944 and 1963? Funny, I thought that more of a golden age in this country...
I suspect that you are confusing taxes (inputs) with government policy (outputs), and you fear that a consumption tax by itself won't raise enough money to fund the government policies that you want.
I was very clear in what I said. And what I said isn't what you're attributing to me. I fear that the Fair Tax that you propose "allows the truly wealthy to further decrease their already-too-low (in my opinion) tax burden", which is incidentally exactly what I said. I explicitly stated that my concern was not with funding the government, but instead the promotion of an equitable distribution of wealth. Protip: reading what I write is a better way of determining my stance than manufacturing your own suspicions.
I will point out that the current US tax system is kind of flat. High earners are in a higher tax bracket but have more opportunities for tax breaks. The overall effect is that everybody has about the same marginal tax rate after $50,000. And what does this added complexity buy us?
The current tax system does not meet my criteria for a good tax either. However, the Fair Tax is worse still, as it's not even "kind of flat", it's outright regressive.
If you further up the thread you can see that I support a consumption tax, a flat income tax with a negative income component.
Yes, otherwise known as the Fair Tax. This is a regressive tax that decreases the tax burden on the wealthy, since only a negligible proportion of their income goes towards consumption. It does not increase the tax burden on the poor, due to the negative income component. The logical consequence is that the tax burden on the middle class is increased (assuming that revenues are maintained).
It is not decreasing the burden on the middle and upper classes. If anything, the lower to middle middle class will see a slight decrease. The upper middle class will be about the same as they are now. The upper class, however, will see an increase because the many loopholes and deductions that allow for them to have a lower effective tax rate than the middle class would be eliminated.
How is it that the upper class, which spends only a negligible proportion of their income, will see an increase in tax burden? Consider that today, nearly all of their income is subject to taxation (albeit at a lower rate), whereas under the Fair Tax, only a tiny proportion of their income would be (a proportion smaller than what they already pay in tax today)? Even if they saw a 100% Fair Tax rate, they'd be spending less on taxes than they are today, since currently a larger proportion of their income goes to taxes than to spending.
So now that we've determined that under the Fair Tax, the tax burden on the wealthy will significantly decrease, can you explain who will be paying the difference if not the middle class? It's evident that the poor won't be paying much at all, so again, I ask you, where will the money come from?
Let's say Buffet's secretary makes $60,000/yr and is in a family of 4. Deduct the $36,000 from that for the poverty level plus 25% portion and she pays tax on $24,000. She is being taxed on 40% of her income. Say one of his managers makes $200,000 with a family of 4, after removing the poverty level, she is taxed on $164,000 on 82% of her income. Buffet, making millions would be taxed on virtually all of his income. But the reality is that everybody gets the same poverty level allowance, so everybody gets the same break.
No, see, Buffet is making millions. Billions, really. But the Fair Tax doesn't tax him on a single penny of that. It's a tax on consumption, not income. Buffer doesn't spend billions. He doesn't spend shit. He lives in a house he bought in 1958 for $31,500. The last car he owned was a 6 year old 2001 Lincoln Town Car (which he sold on eBay in 2007). His spending is probably on par with his secretary's spending, so they'd both be paying comparable amounts of tax. But she makes $60,000/year, and he makes billions. Under the Fair Tax, Mr. Buffet's effective tax rate would amount to a rounding error. You keep talking about income as though that was what was being taxed; it's not. You keep assuming that people spend all their income; the wealthy don't.
That is also the main reason such a proposal is unlikely to pass -- the upper class is the ones that politicians cater to and it is unlikely they will go for a plan that increases their taxes, no matter how fair it might be. (It also explains the overwhelming support for the "fair" tax by the upper class, because it actually reduces their tax burden further).
The main reason this is unlikely to pass because not everyone is blind to the fact that the wealthy don't spend more than a negligible proportion of their income and would therefore be virtually exempt from taxation under this plan. Society cannot afford to grant 20% of income to 1% of the population and then have that money go untaxed.
Feel free to provide reasoning for why you think my post was "very simply a bunch of crap", because you haven't yet. None of your claims contradict what I said (even if they were true).
With a consumption tax, it's up to you how much you are taxed.
Sure, in that you can choose to forego any spending, eventually starving or dying of exposure. With an income tax, it's also up to you how much you are taxed. After all, you can just forego employment and avoid receiving any income. You make some insightful observations.
It rewards saving and investing much more than our current tax system.
It doesn't reward saving or investing; it penalizes spending. It depresses demand for goods and services. In other words, when you tax consumption, you discourage consumption, and that's likely to only slow economic growth, especially when the economy's growth is already bound by sluggish demand.
It would also get rid of the inequity between income tax and capital gains tax, which benefits the wealthy a great deal.
It would also replace this inequity with greater one: the inequity between the proportional spending of the poor and the wealthy. The poor spend all of their money, and therefore all of their money is subject to the Fair Tax. The middle class spends an overwhelming majority of their money, and therefore an overwhelming majority of their money is subject to the Fair Tax. The wealthy spend a negligible fraction of their money, and therefore a negligible fraction of their money is subject to the Fair Tax. That would benefit the wealthy even more.
It would boost the economy immensely, and eliminate several forms of double taxation we "enjoy" now.
See my previous statement about the economy. Regarding double taxation, you're not clear about why it would be desirable to eliminate it. Is it inherently better to apply one big tax instead of two small taxes? Why?
It would also eliminate the IRS, and government snooping into every aspect of our economic life - that is a huge win as well.
I'm not sure where this Fair Tax revenue would be remitted if not the IRS, or who would handle enforcement. Presumably you advocate for the creation of a new department to replace the IRS? Why? Regarding the elimination of "government snooping into every aspect of our economic life", I believe the benefits of this aren't worth the socioeconomic cost of such a regressive tax policy.
(Not to mention the billions saved on tax preparation and related activities...)
Saving a fraction of a percent of GDP doesn't justify the destruction of the middle class.
Slashdot Mirror
What gun control? The U.S. is the most armed country in the world.
The second amendment has nothing to do with how armed the US is compared against the rest of the world. It states that the right to bear arms (such as, for example, nuclear warheads) shall not be infringed. Since private ownership of nuclear warheads is prohibited, the right to bear arms is being infringed. Instead of repealing the amendment that guarantees people the right to bear nuclear warheads, our government has chosen a more expedient approach: to simply ignore the law as it is written and instead choose to interpret it to mean the opposite of what it states.
Your rhetoric is disconnected from reality.
I'm not sure how you went from "shall not be infringed" to "shall be the most armed country in the world", but consider that I might not be the one whose rhetoric is disconnected from reality.
You don't give a shit that you deliberately misrepresented what I said?
Also, it's unclear how I'm an apologist, as I don't believe I ever offered any support to the idea that the government ought to engage in deception to enforce laws. Recognizing the facts of reality is not the same as supporting them.
Indeed, I do think the US Constitution is meaningless. Because it is. It explicitly says one thing, and yet the SCOTUS reads something else entirely. We've long since moved away from the US Constitution meaning anything. Regardless of how you feel about "gun control", we should all be capable of recognizing that instead of repealing the second amendment, we've instead decided to pretend that it doesn't exist, as our rights to bear arms have literally been infringed. This is but one example in a nearly endless list of instances where the US Constitution is indeed meaningless.
I suppose you'll take my observation of reality and somehow infer from it that I hate the US Constitution. You're still incapable of rational thought. Please respond with more personal attacks while implicitly acknowledging the validity of my argument.
Things will change to address this issue.
Either law enforcement will get an exemption from the CFAA or as a society we'll decide that we don't feel comfortable with increasing levels of government power with decreasing levels of oversight.
Unfortunately, I think it will be the former.
One of the main reasons we have law enforcement is for deterrence. One reason why people don't break laws is because of the perception that laws are enforced. One of the consequences of law enforcement having a visible presence is deterrence. People are less likely to break laws when they feel they are more likely to suffer consequences for doing so. If a goal of traffic cops was to, for example, prevent people from exceeding posted speed limits, a highly visible presence would accomplish this goal. However, if a goal of traffics is instead to generate revenue, then a highly visible presence would compromise this goal. The actual tactics used by traffic cops would suggest that they value citation revenue over road safety, as they prefer to try to catch people breaking the law rather than prevent them from breaking the law to begin with. While this itself is not deceptive, claims that traffic cops have promotion of road safety as a goal are.
If you don't like it, pressure your elected officials to have it changed. Of course, that won't accomplish anything, but at the very least people should stop complaining as though this type of abuse was illegal. It's not.
FTFY.
I'm sick of folks saying "entrapment" when a criminal is nabbed by any sort of deception. That isn't what entrapment is.
Indeed. In our society, it is perfectly acceptable for law enforcement to engage in deception to do their job. Whether it's cops sitting off the side of the highway at night with their lights turned off waiting for someone to speed by, or FBI agents convincing borderline-retards that they want to blow things up in an effort to get more terrorism arrests, it's all totally legal.
Personally, I find deceptive law enforcement undesirable, if not downright frightening, but the law is what the law is. If you don't like it, pressure your elected officials to have it changed. Of course, that won't accomplish anything, but at the very least people should stop complaining as though this type of abuse was illegal. It's not.
Mærsk has always had a hand in Danish politics and in turn, the politicians have always been happy to make changes in order to keep large Danish-owned companies in-country and integrated into the industrial infrastructure.
But that doesn't say anything about their influence in the politics of other states, nor does it say anything about any attempts by other states to court Maersk's business and integrate them into industrial infrastructure abroad.
Clearly the people at Maersk have run the numbers and decided that despite all the Danish overtures, South Korea made more sense for Maersk. It's unlikely that they chose South Korea out of some sense of charity, obligation, or favoritism. You're arguing, fundamentally, that they should have instead chose Denmark, not based on merit, but out of some sense of charity, obligation, or favoritism. This may have made sense for Danes, but not for Maersk, and likely not for members of the global economy at large.
What if nonlocal businesses are more likely to use Maersk for shipping? Considering that Denmark's economy is quite small compared to the rest of the global economy, it is indeed the case that nonlocal businesses are more likely to use Maersk for shipping, since there are so many more of them. Consequently, your argument that it would be better for Maersk to use local businesses for its own sake doesn't seem valid.
Kudos for the random insult, though.
Are you suggesting that Maersk is, today, supported exclusively or primarily by the Danish country, society, and industries? Or merely that they somehow owe an implicit debt to Denmark, and though they are not obligated to repay it, should do so anyway?
The cost of assembly is still present in the cost of finished goods, so buying parts and then paying the assembly cost would still be an effective way of circumventing your proposal unless there's some economy of scale that makes it considerably more expensive to assemble on your own.
In any case, I wasn't saying that a progressive consumption tax is impossible. Merely that the best implementation I can think of involves a wholesale abandonment of economic privacy. I'm sure there are other ways of doing it, but they all have their own flaws that are worse still.
Are you trying to be deliberately disingenuous? You're asking a Danish national why a Danish company shoudn't source work in Denmark if it means less money for a country 1/3 of the way around the globe?
I'm trying to be deliberately disingenuous in the same sense that Socrates was. I'm asking a person of indeterminate nationality why it is objectively better for a shipping company to source work from Denmark than from South Korea.
Have you ever given a family member money? If so, why? That would seem to be valuing the interests of your family over the neighbors you've never met. Do you have a rational basis for doing so?
Rarely, I have, because they asked and I found it appropriate. I've also done the same for friends and for strangers as well. I have not given money to neighbors who I've never met, because they didn't ask me. However, I don't believe I'm valuing interests of people who I've met over those whom I haven't; it's just that people I haven't met yet couldn't have asked me for money (by definition). Is there a reason why you don't consider this to be rational?
Supporting local business tends to increase local business, increasing local business. This is good for business.
Doesn't supporting nonlocal businesses tend to increase nonlocal business? Isn't that also good for business? Is there a reason why you seem to be valuing local business over nonlocal business?
Do Korean shipyards get their ship parts shipped by Maersk?
I don't know. Do Danish shipyards get their ship parts shipped by some South Korean shipping company? I'm not sure how this is relevant.
It's rational to support the culture and the people you grew up with, that share your values, and that you work and live alongside.
Okay, so, since it's rational, then you won't have any trouble showing the reasoning behind this statement. Right?
I'm not sure how that's relevant. Are you suggesting that Danish people aren't rational?
But it's still outsourcing tasks to the other side of the world, when they could very easily have been solved at home in way that would have been beneficial to both A.P. Møller-Mærsk and Denmark as a whole.
But wouldn't that have been harmful to South Korea? You seem to be valuing the interests of Denmark over the interests of South Korea. Do you have a rational basis for doing so?
You need to read about the "prebate" aspect of the Fair Tax. It eliminates the regression that concerns you.
Nice attempt at dodging my point.
The "prebate" does nothing to affect what percentage of income is spent by the wealthy. The wealthy do not spend their money, and since the Fair Tax is a consumption tax, an overwhelming majority of their gains in wealth (that is today at least subject to some nominal income and capital gains taxes) would go unspent (and untaxed). Under the Fair Tax, the tax burden shouldered by the wealthy would decrease. It would decrease very significantly
If the tax burden on the wealthy is decreased (for the reason I again explained), and the tax burden on the poor is not increased (because of the "prebate" that you try to distract me with), then the logical consequence is that either the tax burden on the middle class is increased or tax revenues are decreased. Since the Fair Tax is being proposed as a way to fully fund the government, the only possible outcome is that the tax burden on the middle class is increased. If you're arguing that the "prebate" is somehow going to help the middle class enough to ensure that their tax burden is not increased, explain how the shortfall in tax revenues from the wealthy will be made up.
I'm calling you out on your attempt to distract from the main issue. Under the Fair Tax, the wealthy see a huge reduction in their tax burden. That's why it's regressive. There's no amount of "prebate" will change that. Your disdain for the currently-broken tax code is causing you to support one that, although simpler, would cause much worse outcomes for our society.
Splitting large purchases into a set of smaller purchases seems to be a trivial way of avoiding the "progressive" part of your proposal.
While I appreciate the explanation of discrepancy, I'd just like to add:
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
When even those who are critical of the uber-wealthy are still five orders of magnitude too conservative with their estimates of how badly wealth is distributed, it seems that all hope is lost.
The billions of dollars which make up assets of the 0.01%
Trillions of dollars which make up assets of the 0.000125%.
The aggregate wealth of the 400 richest Americans (Forbes 400) is $2.2T, and they account for only 1/80th as many people as you expected.
Yes, it really is that bad. Hard to fathom, but numbers don't lie.
Well said, and my apologies for misunderstanding.
What does "fund the government" mean?
Collect revenues equal to or in excess of receipts.
And how does a high income tax promote wealth equality?
It doesn't. I don't believe I argued that it did.
Is this some vindictive punishment against the wealth, who be definition are evil?
Is what some vindictive punishment against the wealth[y]? A high income tax? Wouldn't a high income tax be more of a "vindictive punishment against" anyone who generates income? Why are you singling out the wealthy? They're impacted exactly as much by a high income tax as is anyone else who generates income. Also, why are you defining the wealthy to be evil?
By destroying innovation and driving away high performers away?
Are you claiming that a consequence of a high income tax is the destruction of innovation and the driving away of high performers? I'm not sure what this has to do with anything I've said, but I'm not sure how tax policy can directly "destroy innovation". Also, you're conflating "high performers" with those with high incomes. While it's likely that a high income tax will drive high income individuals away (to what extent is highly debatable), I don't see why it would have any impact on "high performers".
France's 75% income tax rate plus its wealth tax is doing that quite well.
Just like the USA's 90+% income tax rate did that between 1944 and 1963? Funny, I thought that more of a golden age in this country...
I suspect that you are confusing taxes (inputs) with government policy (outputs), and you fear that a consumption tax by itself won't raise enough money to fund the government policies that you want.
I was very clear in what I said. And what I said isn't what you're attributing to me. I fear that the Fair Tax that you propose "allows the truly wealthy to further decrease their already-too-low (in my opinion) tax burden", which is incidentally exactly what I said. I explicitly stated that my concern was not with funding the government, but instead the promotion of an equitable distribution of wealth. Protip: reading what I write is a better way of determining my stance than manufacturing your own suspicions.
I will point out that the current US tax system is kind of flat. High earners are in a higher tax bracket but have more opportunities for tax breaks. The overall effect is that everybody has about the same marginal tax rate after $50,000. And what does this added complexity buy us?
The current tax system does not meet my criteria for a good tax either. However, the Fair Tax is worse still, as it's not even "kind of flat", it's outright regressive.
If you further up the thread you can see that I support a consumption tax, a flat income tax with a negative income component.
Yes, otherwise known as the Fair Tax. This is a regressive tax that decreases the tax burden on the wealthy, since only a negligible proportion of their income goes towards consumption. It does not increase the tax burden on the poor, due to the negative income component. The logical consequence is that the tax burden on the middle class is increased (assuming that revenues are maintained).
It is not decreasing the burden on the middle and upper classes. If anything, the lower to middle middle class will see a slight decrease. The upper middle class will be about the same as they are now. The upper class, however, will see an increase because the many loopholes and deductions that allow for them to have a lower effective tax rate than the middle class would be eliminated.
How is it that the upper class, which spends only a negligible proportion of their income, will see an increase in tax burden? Consider that today, nearly all of their income is subject to taxation (albeit at a lower rate), whereas under the Fair Tax, only a tiny proportion of their income would be (a proportion smaller than what they already pay in tax today)? Even if they saw a 100% Fair Tax rate, they'd be spending less on taxes than they are today, since currently a larger proportion of their income goes to taxes than to spending.
So now that we've determined that under the Fair Tax, the tax burden on the wealthy will significantly decrease, can you explain who will be paying the difference if not the middle class? It's evident that the poor won't be paying much at all, so again, I ask you, where will the money come from?
Let's say Buffet's secretary makes $60,000/yr and is in a family of 4. Deduct the $36,000 from that for the poverty level plus 25% portion and she pays tax on $24,000. She is being taxed on 40% of her income. Say one of his managers makes $200,000 with a family of 4, after removing the poverty level, she is taxed on $164,000 on 82% of her income. Buffet, making millions would be taxed on virtually all of his income. But the reality is that everybody gets the same poverty level allowance, so everybody gets the same break.
No, see, Buffet is making millions. Billions, really. But the Fair Tax doesn't tax him on a single penny of that. It's a tax on consumption, not income. Buffer doesn't spend billions. He doesn't spend shit. He lives in a house he bought in 1958 for $31,500. The last car he owned was a 6 year old 2001 Lincoln Town Car (which he sold on eBay in 2007). His spending is probably on par with his secretary's spending, so they'd both be paying comparable amounts of tax. But she makes $60,000/year, and he makes billions. Under the Fair Tax, Mr. Buffet's effective tax rate would amount to a rounding error. You keep talking about income as though that was what was being taxed; it's not. You keep assuming that people spend all their income; the wealthy don't.
That is also the main reason such a proposal is unlikely to pass -- the upper class is the ones that politicians cater to and it is unlikely they will go for a plan that increases their taxes, no matter how fair it might be. (It also explains the overwhelming support for the "fair" tax by the upper class, because it actually reduces their tax burden further).
The main reason this is unlikely to pass because not everyone is blind to the fact that the wealthy don't spend more than a negligible proportion of their income and would therefore be virtually exempt from taxation under this plan. Society cannot afford to grant 20% of income to 1% of the population and then have that money go untaxed.
With a consumption tax, it's up to you how much you are taxed.
Sure, in that you can choose to forego any spending, eventually starving or dying of exposure. With an income tax, it's also up to you how much you are taxed. After all, you can just forego employment and avoid receiving any income. You make some insightful observations.
It rewards saving and investing much more than our current tax system.
It doesn't reward saving or investing; it penalizes spending. It depresses demand for goods and services. In other words, when you tax consumption, you discourage consumption, and that's likely to only slow economic growth, especially when the economy's growth is already bound by sluggish demand.
It would also get rid of the inequity between income tax and capital gains tax, which benefits the wealthy a great deal.
It would also replace this inequity with greater one: the inequity between the proportional spending of the poor and the wealthy. The poor spend all of their money, and therefore all of their money is subject to the Fair Tax. The middle class spends an overwhelming majority of their money, and therefore an overwhelming majority of their money is subject to the Fair Tax. The wealthy spend a negligible fraction of their money, and therefore a negligible fraction of their money is subject to the Fair Tax. That would benefit the wealthy even more.
It would boost the economy immensely, and eliminate several forms of double taxation we "enjoy" now.
See my previous statement about the economy. Regarding double taxation, you're not clear about why it would be desirable to eliminate it. Is it inherently better to apply one big tax instead of two small taxes? Why?
It would also eliminate the IRS, and government snooping into every aspect of our economic life - that is a huge win as well.
I'm not sure where this Fair Tax revenue would be remitted if not the IRS, or who would handle enforcement. Presumably you advocate for the creation of a new department to replace the IRS? Why? Regarding the elimination of "government snooping into every aspect of our economic life", I believe the benefits of this aren't worth the socioeconomic cost of such a regressive tax policy.
(Not to mention the billions saved on tax preparation and related activities...)
Saving a fraction of a percent of GDP doesn't justify the destruction of the middle class.
By being regressive?