The FairTax... do you know what it is?

POSTED BY: Nurumla
UPDATED: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 04:35
VIEWED: 8213
PAGE 1 of 1

NURUMLA

Saturday, June 10, 2006 4:01 PM

I was talking up Firefly at the FairTax board so this seemed like the next logical step.
(I would like to point out that this is a non-partisan issue, so please don't refuse to read it because you don't agree with my politics)

It is always a shocker to me how many people have no idea what the FairTax is. A lot of them haven't even heard of it. First here is something most of us can agree on: the current tax system in America is not working. There are so many hundreds of thousands of pages of code that not a single person in the United States understands it. In fact, a few years ago Money magazine sent out identical tax scenarios to 45 different professional tax preparers and got 45 different answers back.

But what to do about the current system? It's beyond repair (do we really just want to add MORE pages of code to it?). So something new will come in. The best solution I have found is a system called the FairTax. The FairTax eliminates the IRS and the income tax (along with the Social Security tax, the Medicare tax, corporate income taxes, the death tax, the self-employment tax, the alternative minimum tax, the gift tax, capital gains taxes, tax audits, and some major headaches every April 15). It replaces these with a 23% consumption tax (a sales tax) on the retail level.

And don't worry, prices for goods would not go up. There are 20-25% of embedded taxes built into every product we buy currently. To understand this first one must know that all cost of business is passed on. If a company has to pay a tax they just build it into the price of their product. Companies do not pay taxes, people do. Once the FairTax is in place the free market will work its magic and prices will be the same as they are now.

This tax is transparent and voluntary. You know exactly how much you're paying because with-holding has been eliminated. It is also voluntary because if you don't want to, you don't have to pay it. Used goods are not taxed.

Because no one should have to pay taxes on the nesseties of life there is a prebate built into the FairTax. Each head of household writes out the names and social security numbers of each member of the house. A check is sent once a month to cover the tax on the basics (based on the poverty level).

Business would come flying back into the United States. Under the current tax codes it is nearly impossible for business to operate (hence why they leave to go to another country) because they are taxed so much. And since all cost is sent right into the price of the good, American products are suffering. Right now it is estimated that 85% of business choices are made around the tax code instead of what is best for the company.

If you'd like to see this movement become a reality, please sign the petition here: http://fairtaxpetition.com/

This doesn't even begin to sum up the FairTax (since I'll pulling the information off the top of my head). So please, ask me questions! I'll be glad to answer them. Or you can go to www.fairtax.org and learn whatever it is you please.

_____________________________________
the woods are lovely, dark, and deep
but I have promises to keep
and miles to go before I sleep

LOSTMARAUDER

Saturday, June 10, 2006 5:10 PM

Been following and talking about this plan for almost 15 years..the best part are that it helps the poor, encourages saving, and nails the "underground" communities like drug dealers and such. Afterall, they love their big toys, right? Imagine nailing them for 23% every time they purchase a yacht, limo, etc.

I encourage everyone to check out this plan and make some noise about it!

NURUMLA

Saturday, June 10, 2006 6:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by LostMarauder:
Been following and talking about this plan for almost 15 years..the best part are that it helps the poor, encourages saving, and nails the "underground" communities like drug dealers and such. Afterall, they love their big toys, right? Imagine nailing them for 23% every time they purchase a yacht, limo, etc.

Completely!

Unfortunately people don't really like talking about taxes. And people my age (19) aren't earning enough money to really understand the bite of the income tax (especially since we don't have a state income tax in Fl)

_____________________________________
the woods are lovely, dark, and deep
but I have promises to keep
and miles to go before I sleep

CITIZEN

Saturday, June 10, 2006 7:30 PM

So basically you cut taxes by a huge amount and remove some of the highest income completely?

I can't see how this would raise the same amount of money, so how can it support all that current taxes do? The US is running a huge deficit and you seem to be advocating a system that would reduce income.

I couldn't find any information on the website on how government services will get the same amount of money from a smaller pot.

Quote:
Once the FairTax is in place the free market will work its magic and prices will be the same as they are now.

Well that's the thing 'free market magic'. It's like trickle down, it's magic, doesn't actually happen. The prices will go up if the tax is put up, that's how it always works. In all likely-hood companies would take it as an opportunity to add a slightly higher percentage to their profits, since the price rises are happening anyway and they can blame it all on the Government, why wouldn't they try to make out on the deal?

Quote:
And don't worry, prices for goods would not go up. There are 20-25% of embedded taxes built into every product we buy currently. To understand this first one must know that all cost of business is passed on. If a company has to pay a tax they just build it into the price of their product. Companies do not pay taxes, people do.

This actually supports the concept that prices go up. The company also buys things so it also pays tax so it still builds in the Fairtax into product prices.

But more over why shouldn't a business pay taxes? Why should they have the protections and rights of an individual but none of the responsibilities?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.

NURUMLA

Sunday, June 11, 2006 3:27 AM

Quote:
I can't see how this would raise the same amount of money, so how can it support all that current taxes do? The US is running a huge deficit and you seem to be advocating a system that would reduce income.

They would make the same amount of money as they currently do off taxes for a simply reason: it gathers taxes from a much larger base than we currently do. It taxes the large underground economy on all of their (rather large) purchases. It taxes people who visit our country on the goods and services they buy (but they'll still be paying the same amount of money they are now). The point of the 23% as being selected was it would be enough to raise the same amount as we currently do off of the income tax.

Quote:
Well that's the thing 'free market magic'. It's like trickle down, it's magic, doesn't actually happen. The prices will go up if the tax is put up, that's how it always works. In all likely-hood companies would take it as an opportunity to add a slightly higher percentage to their profits, since the price rises are happening anyway and they can blame it all on the Government, why wouldn't they try to make out on the deal?

They would not be able to stay in business if they did not lower their prices. Competition would drive them down. One business lowers their price and then everyone else has to do the same thing to be able to compete with them. That's how it works.

Quote:
This actually supports the concept that prices go up. The company also buys things so it also pays tax so it still builds in the Fairtax into product prices.

Goods are only taxed at the retail level. At levels of production they are not taxed.

Quote:

But more over why shouldn't a business pay taxes? Why should they have the protections and rights of an individual but none of the responsibilities?

As I said before all costs of business are passed on to the consumer- that includes tax compliance costs. Business do not pay taxes. They make sure that we pay it for them (by building it into the cost). Making the United States a tax haven of the world (which is what the FairTax would do) would open up so much new business here and bring in so much money.

_____________________________________
the woods are lovely, dark, and deep
but I have promises to keep
and miles to go before I sleep

SERGEANTX

Sunday, June 11, 2006 3:57 AM

I like this plan. It would encourage a large underground economy as people sought ways to avoid the tax. I think this would be very healthy and throw a wrench in plans to shift us all to a cashless economy. You got my signature. Seems like an uphill battle though.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

CITIZEN

Sunday, June 11, 2006 11:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Nurumla:
They would make the same amount of money as they currently do off taxes for a simply reason: it gathers taxes from a much larger base than we currently do. It taxes the large underground economy on all of their (rather large) purchases. It taxes people who visit our country on the goods and services they buy (but they'll still be paying the same amount of money they are now). The point of the 23% as being selected was it would be enough to raise the same amount as we currently do off of the income tax.

Yeah I read the stuff on the website and it all just sounds like propaganda (no offence meant it’s just how it reads to me). Huge revenues are made from a business, that’s not going to be covered by tourists. Furthermore the website is replete with examples of how people will be paying LESS tax. All I can see is that everyone (except tourists who’ll be paying more, which hardly seems fair) will be paying less tax. It's a scheme that cuts what people pay by only taxing them on what they consume.

I also read that it would raise the same as the income tax (I doubt it would but I'll get to that) but Income tax isn't the only tax its scraping is it, so if 23% returns the same revenue as the income tax the overall revenue will drop.

When you lower taxes no matter how you cut it you have less money which means you have to cut government services.

As to why I think tax income would be lower: as you say people can opt out, especially the rich who have more options to opt out. Also overall I’m not sure this scheme is that fair, because the wealthy spend a far lower percentage of their wealth on goods than the poor. So the poor are going to be spending a higher percentage of their earnings on tax than the rich. It really sounds like it could just end up being a tax the poor to spare the rich scheme.

Quote:
They would not be able to stay in business if they did not lower their prices. Competition would drive them down. One business lowers their price and then everyone else has to do the same thing to be able to compete with them. That's how it works.

Actually it tends not to be. Companies often take a tax rise as an excuse to raise their prices, yeah if one broke the mould and refused to raise their prices the others would have to go back to the old pre tax price to remain competitive, but oddly that doesn't happen, despite what economics text books say.

Quote:
Goods are only taxed at the retail level. At levels of production they are not taxed.

For sure, but companies BUY THINGS. They buy at the retail level. Many goods (especially electrical) buy their components AT RETAIL, they don't manufacture them. Shops buy goods wholesale but still from a retail outlet (many wholesalers will still allow you to buy even if you don't represent a business).

They buy office supplies, they buy photocopiers, computers, buildings, carpets, chairs, potted plants they buy coffee

.

Are they going to be exempt from the FairTax? Because that doesn’t sound very fair...

Which brings me to:

Quote:
As I said before all costs of business are passed on to the consumer- that includes tax compliance costs. Business do not pay taxes. They make sure that we pay it for them (by building it into the cost). Making the United States a tax haven of the world (which is what the FairTax would do) would open up so much new business here and bring in so much money.

This isn't answering my question. I asked why a business should enjoy the rights privileges and protections of an individual, but none of the inherent responsibilities (like paying taxes).

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.

LOSTMARAUDER

Sunday, June 11, 2006 5:57 PM

Quote:
This isn't answering my question. I asked why a business should enjoy the rights privileges and protections of an individual, but none of the inherent responsibilities (like paying taxes).

Ultimately, the consumer pays every cent of tax collected by the government. If Widgets, Inc pays tax on the raw materials used to manufacture its products, the company will pass those costs along to the retailer, who then will pass them to the consumer. So the consumer pays the hidden taxes now (20-25% of the retail price) or will pay them in addition to the much lower retail price in the fair tax system.

All I can say is, I'm a cynic who looks for the "catch" in EVERYTHING. After 15 years of research, I have yet to find a single reason not to support the Fair Tax. Trust me, that's saying something.

Quote:
When you lower taxes no matter how you cut it you have less money which means you have to cut government services.

And the problem with that is...?

CITIZEN

Sunday, June 11, 2006 10:37 PM

Erm nothing is wrong with reducing government services to reduce taxes if that's your thing. What's wrong is when you say we reduce taxes but not reduce services because that's bullshit which is what the fairtax system says.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.

NURUMLA

Monday, June 12, 2006 2:44 PM

I can't make you believe that this would be a revenue neutral switch, but that is why 23% was chosen. They hired top economists to do the job of coming up with the tax idea to begin with. But I can't make you believe that if you think it's all just propaganda.

My advice to you is to read the book. It's easy to read, available at most libraries and only takes a few hours to get through. It answers all of the questions you have much better than I can with examples that I don't know by heart yet (including one when corporate taxes were not renewed by congress and prices dropped).

_____________________________________
the woods are lovely, dark, and deep
but I have promises to keep
and miles to go before I sleep

TIGER

Monday, June 12, 2006 4:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I like this plan. It would encourage a large underground economy as people sought ways to avoid the tax. I think this would be very healthy and throw a wrench in plans to shift us all to a cashless economy.

I was going to say the same thing. We'd all become smugglers and black-marketeers.

I would probably never have to pay any kind of tax ever again. Count me in too. :-)

SIGNYM

Monday, June 12, 2006 5:25 PM

Altho I agree that the tax code needs simplifying (I'm one of those people that still does their own tax, sans taxware. Plus I'm a household employer so I get to fill out W-2s, W-3s, FUTA, SSI, and all that....) I really don't think this "fair tax" is a good idea.

First of all it's not fair. Because the poor and middle class spend the largest portion of their income on consumption (the wealthy invest/ speculate with theirs) it would tax the poorer more and eventually cycle more money percent-wise into the hands of the upper class.

Not that I'm a bleeding-heart liberal, but do you know what caused the Great Depression? It was basically the collapse of middle-class purchasing power after the stock bubble burst. Once people stop buying, factories close. People are thrown out of work and the cycle continues. Sucking money out of the poor and middle class is generally not sustainable in the long run (altho Bush and his cronies are doing their best!)

Hey, gotta run. I'll add a few more paras on why it's poor policy later.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

PIRATENEWS

Monday, June 12, 2006 6:35 PM

Uncle Scam's Income Tax is voluntary - 16th Amendment never ratified by the States

The "Fair Tax" (aka European VAT Sales Tax) or Flat Tax is for sucker slaves. $70-Trillion taxdollars is stolen from CAFR Govt "pension" (slush) funds every year, more than enough to run all fed, state and local govt's with ZERO taxation of ANY kind. Starting in the 1950s, Gangsta Govt keeps two sets of books - The Budget Report (expenses), and the Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (profits). Check it out for yourself in your own city, county and state. Ask for your own free copy of your CAFR and Budget reports. The greedheads don't work, they live off OPM - Other Peoples' Money. DOH!
www.cafrman.com

Why would anyone volunteer to pay taxes when individual gov't employees pay themselves, millions, billions or trillions of taxdollars/year salary? IRS is just a private collection agency for the private international counterfeit Federal Reserve Bank Corporation. NONE of the income taxes you pay are used to run the U.S. Govt.

Quote:

www.freedomtofascism.com

1040 Checkmate?

DOJ Dismisses Felony Tax Prosecution With Prejudice, After PRA Defense Raised

Evidence OMB Complicit In Income Tax Fraud

DOJ & IRS Petitioned To Explain

http://GiveMeLiberty.org
June 9, 2006

On May 12, 2006 in Peoria, Illinois, the attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) begged the court to dismiss all charges against IRS victim Robert Lawrence in federal District Court.

The motion for dismissal came on the heels of a surprise tactic by Lawrence's defense attorney Oscar Stilley.

The tactic threatened exposure of IRS's on-going efforts to defraud the public. The move put DOJ attorneys in a state of panic that left them with only one alternative: beg for dismissal, with prejudice.

Stilley's tactic paid off. Sixty days earlier, the DOJ had indicted Lawrence on three counts of willful failure to file a 1040 form, and three felony counts of income tax evasion. The federal Judge dismissed all charges with prejudice, meaning the DOJ cannot charge Lawrence with those crimes again.

The trial was to have started on Monday morning, May 15th.

On Wednesday, May 10, Stilley mailed a set of documents to the DOJ in response to DOJ's discovery demands. The documents revealed to DOJ for the first time that Lawrence was basing his entire defense on an act of Congress, 44 U.S.C. 3500 – 3520, also known as the "Paperwork Reduction Act" (PRA).

In Section 3512 of the Act, titled "Public Protection," it says that no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with an agency's collection of information request (such as a 1040 form), if the request does not display a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the Act, or if the agency fails to inform the person who is to respond to the collection of information that he is not required to respond to the collection of information request unless it displays a valid control number.

In Section 3512 Congress went on to authorize that the protection provided by Section 3512 may be raised in the form of a complete defense at any time during an agency's administrative process (such as an IRS Tax Court or Collection and Due Process Hearing) or during a judicial proceeding (such as Lawrence's criminal trial).

click link for the rest of this long article:
http://givemeliberty.org/RTP2/UPDATES/Update2006-06-09.htm

The Law They Hope You Never Read

As interviewed on Rense Radio

By William A. Shields
www.Rense.com,
Feb 6, 2006

At first I thought this issue was amusing. Then, the more I researched it, the more compelling it became, and today, I'm here to tell you that the subject of this column is arguably, the most important issue of our lifetime. I'm speaking of fraud on a scale so massive and so enduring it could only be perpetrated by the federal government. That is to say, a federal government ope

SIGNYM

Monday, June 12, 2006 7:42 PM

Back to tax and monetary policy...

Think about it. Money, unlike water, tends to concentrate unless intentionally re-distributed. Wealthy individuals and corporations bend the law to aggregate more and more money into the hands of fewer and fewer. But what drives an economy is circulation of capital. Once capital is fully concentrated, circulation stops. You can have an economy with literally hundred of billions of bills and coins, but unless they actually change hands the economy is stagnant. That was Keyne's whole point of introducing inflation by increasing the money supply and introducing it thru the bottom strata to overcome the natural tendency of money to concentrate.

At this point, profits account for 12% of the GNP- up from 9% five years ago- while the amount of money going to wages declined from 52% to 48%. The USA has a wealth gap larger than any other developed nation. Even business leaders have said that this rate of concentration is "unsustainable".

As for business flocking to the USA- one of the biggest costs that USA businesses bear that other developed economies don't is killer health insurance costs. This is because one part of the economic sector- in this case the insurances- are allowed to bleed other businesses dry.

Quote:
Ultimately, the consumer pays every cent of tax collected by the government. If Widgets, Inc pays tax on the raw materials used to manufacture its products, the company will pass those costs along to the retailer, who then will pass them to the consumer. So the consumer pays the hidden taxes now (20-25% of the retail price) or will pay them in addition to the much lower retail price in the fair tax system.

Your argument contains a deep logical flaw. If it's true that ultimately the consumers pay the tax anyway, why not just tax the corporations and be done with it? Clearly, it DOES make a difference "who" pays the taxes otherwise the corporations wouldn't be fighting taxes so hard!

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NURUMLA

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 2:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by piratenews:
Uncle Scam's Income Tax is voluntary - 16th Amendment never ratified by the States

The "Fair Tax" (aka European VAT Sales Tax) or Flat Tax

Whoa now! Stop right there. The FairTax is NOT the VAT tax and it is NOT the Flat Tax.

First off the Flat Tax is still an income tax, something that the FairTax eliminates. The Flat Tax doesn't change anything really. Click this link to more information: http://www.pafairtax.org/resrcs/FlatTaxFairTaxComparison.pdf

And the VAT tax imposes a tax at every intermediate step of production, so the goods reach the final consumer with much of the tax already implicit in the price. The FairTax only taxes at the retail level.

the woods are lovely, dark, and deep
but I have promises to keep
and miles to go before I sleep

NURUMLA

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 2:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
First of all it's not fair. Because the poor and middle class spend the largest portion of their income on consumption (the wealthy invest/ speculate with theirs) it would tax the poorer more and eventually cycle more money percent-wise into the hands of the upper class.

Actually no, the FairTax is the best system for the poor there is (short of communism, which I am completely against). The FairTax Plan provides a tax prebate every month that completely relieves individuals and families living at or below the poverty level from paying taxes. 100% tax-free living at or below the poverty level. No other tax strategy has so strongly empowered the lower classes to climb their way towards earning a dignified living.

The FairTax treats all Americans exactly the same. The wealthy will no longer be able to take advantage of loopholes or use expensive tax attorneys and accountants to, as some have said, “cheat” their way out of paying taxes.

Quote:
Your argument contains a deep logical flaw. If it's true that ultimately the consumers pay the tax anyway, why not just tax the corporations and be done with it? Clearly, it DOES make a difference "who" pays the taxes otherwise the corporations wouldn't be fighting taxes so hard!

Again, no. If cooperations had less tax burden there would be less burden to be passed down to the consumer, thus making that business better suited for competition. And competition is what makes the world go round, for them at least.

the woods are lovely, dark, and deep
but I have promises to keep
and miles to go before I sleep

CITIZEN

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 7:51 AM

Quote:
Actually no, the FairTax is the best system for the poor there is (short of communism, which I am completely against). The FairTax Plan provides a tax prebate every month that completely relieves individuals and families living at or below the poverty level from paying taxes. 100% tax-free living at or below the poverty level. No other tax strategy has so strongly empowered the lower classes to climb their way towards earning a dignified living.

The FairTax treats all Americans exactly the same. The wealthy will no longer be able to take advantage of loopholes or use expensive tax attorneys and accountants to, as some have said, “cheat” their way out of paying taxes.

The fact still remains that since the poor spend a far greater percentage of their earnings on products in comparision to the wealthy that they're going to be making a greater percentage wise tax contribution than the rich.

With common income taxing schemes the percentage of tax increases with earnings, the FairTax system would reverse that, which is unfair.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.

PIRATENEWS

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 9:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Nurumla:
Quote:
Originally posted by piratenews:
Uncle Scam's Income Tax is voluntary - 16th Amendment never ratified by the States

And the VAT tax imposes a tax at every intermediate step of production, so the goods reach the final consumer with much of the tax already implicit in the price. The FairTax only taxes at the retail level.

When I lived in England, VAT sales tax was NOT paid by businesses, since they got VAT exemption forms, just like in USA. That's an 18% discount.

In USA, small biz owners carry their sales tax exemption form when they go shopping, and never pay sales tax again. Sheeple just carry their "Special Customer Discount Card" ("special" means "retarded").

If CAFR taxdollars weren't looted, there would be no need for sales tax, income tax, property tax, or gas tax ($3/gallon in europe and soon in USA). Honest sheeple just cannot seem to comprehend the criminal minds of our politicians, which is insane.

When you think like a business owner, you realize Uncle Scam already has all the money it needs to run all govt services without taxation. Rule #1 in business - when your biz earns $70-Trillion/year in PROFIT, you don't need to borrow any more money from the banksters (private Fed Reserve) nor the shareholders (you and me). Heck, you don't even need to sell to customers (taxpayers) any more, since the company's investments on Wall Street provide far more income. Big Brother has worked for 2 centuries and has enough of a nest egg to literally retire, and live off its investments FOREVER.

But to Gangsta Govt, no price is too high, and it's never satisfied until all its customers are dead, robbed, raped or doped. Taxation is just armed robbery.

These bastards and bitches think we are their slaves. That's why they hid out at the Bilderberg meeting in Canada this past week, plotting their next armed robbery and mass murder on their global plantation. Bilderberg is the top secret society on the planet, where US presidents and prime ministers are hired and fired, in total secrecy. Last year they "predicted" $150/barrel oil, which they'll get when Bush and BLiar bravely sign their signatures to invade Iran.

Quote:

"The 54th Bilderberger meeting will be held in Ottowa, Canada, 8-11, 2006. The conference will deal mainly with European-American relations, Energy, Russia, Iran, the Middle East, Asia, Terrorism and Immigration. Approximately 130 participants will attend of whom about 2/4rds will come from Europe and the balance from North America. The meeting is private in order to encourage frank and open discussion. Bildergerg takes its name from the hotel in Holland, where the first meeting took place in 1954. Bilderberg is a small, flexible, informal and off-the-record international forum in which different veiwpoints can be expressed and mutual understanding enhanced. Participants have agreed not to give interviews to the press during the meeting. In contacts with the media after the conference it is an established rule that no attribution should be made to individual participants of what was discussed during the meeting. There will be no press conference. A list of participants is appended."
-Bilderberger Press Release 2006
www.infowars.com/articles/nwo/bilderberg_list2006.htm
www.infowars.com/articles/nwo/secretb.htm

David Rockefeller at Bilderberg 2006
Photo by Jean Levac, The Ottawa Citizen

"For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If t

SIGNYM

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 10:54 AM

Quote:
Again, no. If cooperations had less tax burden there would be less burden to be passed down to the consumer, thus making that business better suited for competition. And competition is what makes the world go round, for them at least.

I know this is hard to believe, but the LAST thing that corporations want is competition. As soon as a business goes from being a "small business" (fighting tooth and nail for that lunchtime dollar) to a large business it seeks it's natural, most profitable state: monopolism and then fascism. If a monopoly is not achievable a cartel will do nicely.

To address your first point- what this tax will do is create a tax "hump". The rebate will affect the very poorest for a larger percent of income, the top 10% will get whacked less (on a percentage basis) because they spend far less on consumption, and the middle class- the ones who already have the largest tax burden (as a percentage of income) will once again get nailed. It's still not fair because it targets the middle class.

As for consumers always paying taxes... First of all, everyone touches the money as it passes thru their hands: consumers, business, and government. (To quote Dune "Money flows everywhere.") I could just as easily say that "business eventually pays all taxes" and even "government eventually pays all taxes". Your point that "consumers eventually pay all taxes" is... well... kind of a cheat.

So let's assume that what you're REALLY trying to do is shift the tax burden away from business. Is that the model we want to follow? Why not just lower the average wage? Reduce worker safety and environmental laws? Eliminate worker's compensation? Heck- remove ALL "cost of doing business" from the corporations? Make the whole world a giant "company town"?

Well, then we'd be back in the days of the robber barons. The long -term problem with that economic model, as I've pointed out before, is that you're setting the stage for an economic meltdown. You have to recycle MOST of the money back into the hands of your best consumers otherwise you have no economy left. And what money is sequestered into "profits" has to be replaced by printing more money.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NURUMLA

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 2:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
The fact still remains that since the poor spend a far greater percentage of their earnings on products in comparision to the wealthy that they're going to be making a greater percentage wise tax contribution than the rich.

With common income taxing schemes the percentage of tax increases with earnings, the FairTax system would reverse that, which is unfair.

It think we've reached the source of our disagreement. So even though this system is better for the middle class and the lower class, you don't like it because it's not taxing the rich enough? I believe that taxing everyone the same is best. "In the most advanced countries the following will be pretty generally applicable:..a heavy progressive or graduated income tax." That was written by Karl Marx in The Communist Manifesto.

Quote:

To address your first point- what this tax will do is create a tax "hump". The rebate will affect the very poorest for a larger percent of income, the top 10% will get whacked less (on a percentage basis) because they spend far less on consumption, and the middle class- the ones who already have the largest tax burden (as a percentage of income) will once again get nailed. It's still not fair because it targets the middle class.

This does not target anyone as I said before its fair, everyone gets treated exactly the same. See above.

Quote:
but the LAST thing that corporations want is competition

I am aware that if they could have a monopoly they would take it. But they don't have a monopoly. They have people they have to compete against to keep their prices in check.

the woods are lovely, dark, and deep
but I have promises to keep
and miles to go before I sleep

GEEZER

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 4:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Nurumla:
The FairTax eliminates the IRS ...

I always get a chuckle out of this statement relating to Fair Tax, Flat Tax, VAT Tax, etc. We could eliminate the IRS tomorrow. Just rename it the Tax Collection Bureau, or somethnig.

No matter the tax system, you're going to have some organization that does the paperwork and enforces the laws.

Here's a few things I see along that line with the Fair Tax.

Someone still has to collect the money from the businesses who gather it as sales tax, and insure that businesses are reporting it correctly. That 23% just sitting there will be too tempting for some business owners, and failing businesses might decide they'd rather pay salary or rent with that than pay the government. They do this now with withholding and SS they collect from their employees. There's a need for collection enforcement right there.

As others have noted, that much sales tax will drive more of the economy underground, requiring more investigation and enforcement.

There will probably be a lot of issues around what is "new". If I build a house, rent it out for a year, and then sell it, is it new or used? How about a new car leased for a year then sold?Will such an actions be disallowed practice? More investigation and enforcement personnel needed. Also more law and regulation to clarify.

Wage earners will still have their income reported for Social Security computation purposes, but what about the self-employed? It would be to their benefit to report the highest income possible, to gain the largest SSA payout when they retire. Yep, more investigation and enforcement.

I could go on, but you get the idea. Still have an IRS analogue, still have audits, still have criminal investigations, still have collections functions. Fair tax just shifts the burden from the individual to the businesses he or she deals with.

"If Darwin ain't Happy,
Ain't Nobody Happy"

SIGNYM

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 4:14 PM

Quote:
To address your first point- what this tax will do is create a tax "hump". The rebate will affect the very poorest for a larger percent of income, the top 10% will get whacked less (on a percentage basis) because they spend far less on consumption, and the middle class- the ones who already have the largest tax burden (as a percentage of income) will once again get nailed. It's still not fair because it targets the middle class.-Signy

This does not target anyone as I said before its fair, everyone gets treated exactly the same. See above.-Nurumla

Everyone gets "treated" the same, but nonetheless the "effect" is to create a tax "hump". I calculated it out on a spreadsheet and I urge you to do the same.

Quote:
...but the LAST thing that corporations want is competition.-Signy

I am aware that if they could have a monopoly they would take it. But they don't have a monopoly. They have people they have to compete against to keep their prices in check.-Nurumla

Do you mean they have "people" to compete against or do you mean they have other corporations they have to compete against?

Assuming that you mean corporations are competing against corporations... many corporations have already achieved monopoly or cartel status- oil and related petroleum products, energy, software, agri-biotech (Monsanto, Dow), communications, insurances ... I'm sure I can come up with more if I think about it for another few minutes. And in the near future I think you'll see the auto industry, chip-making, and industrial chemicals following suit. (Virtually all industrial chemical manufacturing is now in China.)

You can tell there is a virtual monopoly because prices get jacked up artificially and stay there- that wouldn't be the case if effective competition was in place.

And, amazingly, I agree with Geezer! SOMEONE will have to check the cash register tapes against the reported business receipts and the actual volume of business. I knew a sales auditor and he commonly sat in as a "customer" at a restaurant, clocking the number of people who came and went, or sat across from a gas station, or matched sales receipts against costs. (And occasionally uncovered businesses with two sets of books- one for casual perusal and one for "The Don"). Yep, someone will wind up enforcing the the new tax code.
Oh and BTW- how do you account for internet sales?

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

CITIZEN

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 5:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Nurmla:
It think we've reached the source of our disagreement. So even though this system is better for the middle class and the lower class, you don't like it because it's not taxing the rich enough? I believe that taxing everyone the same is best.

Everyone pays less tax but we get the same amount of money? Back to my original point: The rich are paying less; this system is apparently better for the Middle and Lower class so they must be paying less, Businesses don't pay tax at all, which they do now, so what we get, is:

Less tax being collected, which means less government funds, which means government services will have to be cut, which will hit the lower classes harder than the middle classes, who will be hit harder than the rich. The rich whose tax contribution is reduced the most by the FairTax system; they also make a far lower percentage-wise contribution under this scheme than the lower or middle classes.

Flat rate taxes are not fair, because they shift the greatest burden down to those who have the least money.

Quote:
"In the most advanced countries the following will be pretty generally applicable:..a heavy progressive or graduated income tax." That was written by Karl Marx in The Communist Manifesto.

I'm not sure why you bring this up, because you seem to be using it to support wanting a flat tax system, where graduated and progressive taxing systems are where those with more disposable income pay more tax.

If you used that quote because everything Marx said must be wrong and Capitalism in it's most pure and violent form will save us all then I'm going to fall asleep. Pure capitalism had it's time and it was pretty shitty for the majority of people, which is why Marx started writing his manifesto.

Quote:
This does not target anyone as I said before its fair, everyone gets treated exactly the same. See above.

Right so multi millionaire pays $10,000 a year in tax. Guy who earns $15,000 a year has to pay the same. Is that fair? One guy dies of starvation out on the street, the other waits an extra week for his yacht. Is that fair? They're both being treated the same.

People earn different amounts, if one person has 20% of their wage as disposable income (after food shelter and so on) where another has 95% of their wage as disposable how is it fair that they should both pay the same percentage of their income?

20% tax of one will hit them a lot harder than the other.

Quote:
I am aware that if they could have a monopoly they would take it. But they don't have a monopoly. They have people they have to compete against to keep their prices in check.

Microsoft.

Fact is most sectors are moving closer to monopolies, not further away. The number of companies trading in any particular sector is dropping.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.

FLETCH2

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 4:35 AM

Just some observations.

1) There are a lot of under the table dealings in the UK to avoid paying VAT. Go down the Totenham Court Rd with a pocket full of cash and you can easily buy most electronic goods sans VAT. It's no skin of the dealer's nose (as long as he isn't caught) because it doesn't effect his profit, the "discount" is money he never sees anyway.

2) As Citizen says if a government costs X billion dollars a year to run then it has to get X billion from somewhere, either through taxes or by borrowing. The only way it can operate on less that X billion is to cut services. You want to cut taxes? Then cut government spending and be honest about it, don't talk tripe about having your cake and eating it.

3) Taxes are by their nature "unfair" to someone. The only people that see a tax system as being "fairer" than another are trhe people that pay less under the "fair" tax. That's why tax policy is an interesting sociological experiment because if government spending remains constant and one group in society pays less then someone somewhere must pay more to make up the difference. It's interesting to watch those that will benefit try to persuade the ones that will suffer to back the idea. It's like watching turkeys vote for Christmas.

4) Finally modern capitalism is based on consumption. People buying things they don't really need helps to keep money flowing in the economy and give other people jobs. The last thing you want is to reduce people's spending power by taxing what they spend.

As for the 24% "invisible taxes" all that money ends up in government coffers. So if you are saying that the american tax burden is really 54% (30% real and 24% stealth "Invisable" taxes) and you are going to replace it with a 24% flat tax then where is the other 30% going to come from. Your argument is that prices wont go up because we already pay a stealth 24% flat tax, if we believe that where does your scheme make up the difference?