If you paid taxes but 99% didn't would it bother you?

[Oldgamer]

Here is another article from the NY Times demonstrating that the Fairtax is not so fair, and shifts the burden onto the poor and middle class: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/b...etback-for-charities.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Quote: "Leonard Burman, a tax expert at Syracuse University and co-author of the recent book, “Taxes in America: What Everyone Needs to Know,” said that “most itemized deductions are of dubious merit — they don’t do much good, and they’re not well-targeted at providing assistance to people who really need it.”

Factcheck.org also has some very good points on why the Fairtax system would not be feasible: http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.html

 

[cybrsage]

I did a search for both fair tax and fairtax in that link, no matches found. Can you quote the part you mentioned?

EDIT: I also searched for consumption but found nothing.

 

[Oldgamer]

I did a search for both fair tax and fairtax in that link, no matches found. Can you quote the part you mentioned?

EDIT: I also searched for consumption but found nothing.

The quote from Leonard Burman is in the NYTimes article I linked. Hit control F on that article type in his name.

 

[FaaR]

TWhy should people be taxed on their production, what they create? Shouldn't you tax people on what they consume, what they use up instead?

People with lower incomes consume a much greater percentage of their income than wealthy (there's only so many mansions and yachts and sports cars a rich person will buy; the rest - read: vast majority - of their income will go into savings and investments and thus won't be taxed), such a tax system would therefore hit them progressively harder the lower their income is. That would constitute wealth transfer in direction of poor towards the rich, a reverse Robin Hood effect if you will.

I suppose you don't see a problem with that? You may want to consider that a mere 1% of the US already owns a staggering 40% of all the wealth in the US, the next 19% owns 51% of the wealth, and the vast majority of the US - 80% of the population - collectively owns only 9% of the wealth. Of course, the upper bracket of those 80% owns far more of that 9% than the lower bracket, making this even more skewed.

Do you really need to excarbate this disparity even further...?

Anyway, what makes you think a rich person necessarily produces anything?! Investment bankers and stock brokers for example don't produce shit. They just leech cash off of the financial market system to enrichen themselves.

 

[Oldgamer]

People with lower incomes consume a much greater percentage of their income than wealthy (there's only so many mansions and yachts and sports cars a rich person will buy; the rest - read: vast majority - of their income will go into savings and investments and thus won't be taxed), such a tax system would therefore hit them progressively harder the lower their income is. That would constitute wealth transfer in direction of poor towards the rich, a reverse Robin Hood effect if you will.

I suppose you don't see a problem with that? You may want to consider that a mere 1% of the US already owns a staggering 40% of all the wealth in the US, the next 19% owns 51% of the wealth, and the vast majority of the US - 80% of the population - collectively owns only 9% of the wealth. Of course, the upper bracket of those 80% owns far more of that 9% than the lower bracket, making this even more skewed.

Do you really need to excarbate this disparity even further...?

Anyway, what makes you think a rich person necessarily produces anything?! Investment bankers and stock brokers for example don't produce shit. They just leech cash off of the financial market system to enrichen themselves.

^ This right here, exactly..

 

[Linux23]

the only fair tax is no taxes.


I Keeeeeeed.

 

[cybrsage]

The quote from Leonard Burman is in the NYTimes article I linked. Hit control F on that article type in his name.

This is the only place his name shows up:

Leonard Burman, a tax expert at Syracuse University and co-author of the recent book, “Taxes in America: What Everyone Needs to Know,” said that “most itemized deductions are of dubious merit — they don’t do much good, and they’re not well-targeted at providing assistance to people who really need it.”

No mention of the fair tax, flat tax, or consumption tax.

 

[cybrsage]

People with lower incomes consume a much greater percentage of their income than wealthy (there's only so many mansions and yachts and sports cars a rich person will buy; the rest - read: vast majority - of their income will go into savings and investments and thus won't be taxed), such a tax system would therefore hit them progressively harder the lower their income is. That would constitute wealth transfer in direction of poor towards the rich, a reverse Robin Hood effect if you will.

Nope, the money will not go from the poor to the rich via taxes. The fair tax has rebates in it to protect the poor.

I suppose you don't see a problem with that? You may want to consider that a mere 1% of the US already owns a staggering 40% of all the wealth in the US, the next 19% owns 51% of the wealth, and the vast majority of the US - 80% of the population - collectively owns only 9% of the wealth. Of course, the upper bracket of those 80% owns far more of that 9% than the lower bracket, making this even more skewed.

Do you really need to excarbate this disparity even further...?

Irrelevant blathering.

Anyway, what makes you think a rich person necessarily produces anything?! Investment bankers and stock brokers for example don't produce shit. They just leech cash off of the financial market system to enrichen themselves.

They produce results by which I become richer. According to your use of produce, no one in the service industry produces anything. The waitress, the auto mechanic, the mail man, etc. None of them produce anything. In fact, MOST Americans do not actually produce anything, if we use produce the way you are using it.

 

[FaaR]

Nope, the money will not go from the poor to the rich via taxes.

Not via taxes directly (durr!), but through the end result of regressive taxation it is still an effective wealth transfer system by making lower income brackets shouldering a greater burden than higher income brackets.

Such a system won't ever be viable to create a stable society and financial system since it pulls out the rug from under the base; the middle class. That's what's happening right now in the US and has been happening for the last 30ish years ever since Reaganomics and associated trickle-down bullsht came into fashion. If you just cut government spending wildly to size down tax burdens for the lower income brackets you basically demolish all safety nets, public schools, benefits and so on. Especially if the grossly oversized US military is to be kept intact. This would also be incredibly harmful for those 80% of americans who already own so little of US wealth.

Irrelevant blathering.

You can ignore the elephant in the room all you want, but it won't make it go away...

They produce results by which I become richer.

Not really, unless you're part of the very richest percents of society, in which case you don't really need to become richer anyway.

It's mostly the stock brokers and investment bankers themselves, and owners of stock portfolios and hedge funds who become richer through their activities; thus meaning top 20% of society roughly; the rest generally have little to NO savings at all.

According to your use of produce, no one in the service industry produces anything.

I haven't said anything about any definition. I'm just saying that many rich people don't actually produce, or add wealth just by function of being rich. They merely transfer money around the system, diverting more of it to themselves. Same with many idle rich who don't even work, their wealth just sits in trust funds managed by more of these stockbroker people, vampiring off of every transaction made. No value actually added anywhere.

 

[cybrsage]

Not via taxes directly (durr!), but through the end result of regressive taxation it is still an effective wealth transfer system by making lower income brackets shouldering a greater burden than higher income brackets.

You have yet to show this. The fair tax is not regressive.

You can ignore the elephant in the room all you want, but it won't make it go away...

Blathering goes away on its own - it dies a simpering death of irrelevance.

Not really, unless you're part of the very richest percents of society, in which case you don't really need to become richer anyway.

You are saying everyone with a 401k is "very rich". That is silly.

I haven't said anything about any definition. I'm just saying that many rich people don't actually produce, or add wealth just by function of being rich. They merely transfer money around the system, diverting more of it to themselves. Same with many idle rich who don't even work, their wealth just sits in trust funds managed by more of these stockbroker people, vampiring off of every transaction made. No value actually added anywhere.

You just described what most Americans do. The waitress, the auto mechanic, the mail man, etc. None of them produce anything. They waitress is the most egregious of the three I mention, as all she does is make you pay more for your food...she diverts your money into her pocket.

You need a new line of hate for the rich - the "they do not produce" is full of fail.

 

[FaaR]

The fair tax is not regressive.

Of course it is, don't be ridiculous. If the only form of taxation is sales tax, and you earn $1000 a month, how much of that will be spent on taxable purchases of various kinds of that salary as a percentage? Now if you earn $10million, how much, again as a percentage?

Not regressive my rear end...

You are saying everyone with a 401k is "very rich". That is silly.

Jesus christ, I'm saying nobody except the very rich earn very much through the efforts of our "value-adding" stock brokers and investment bankers, simply by function of not owning very much, or even any stock at all. So thus the ones who most benefit (to the vast majority) are those who are already wealthy, very wealthy or extremely ludicrously wealthy. Yes I agree, it's very difficult to comprehend this simple logic if you just don't WANT to understand.

You just described what most Americans do. The waitress, the auto mechanic, the mail man, etc.

Strawman much, eh! I was speaking specifically of certain categories of uselessly rich people and you go dragging in all kinds of other non-related categories of people. Try to stick to the point, if that is at all possible for you.

You need a new line of hate for the rich - the "they do not produce" is full of fail.

It might have been, if that's what I'd actually claimed - you really love your little strawmen don't you.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Everyone who CAN pay, should pay, and what anyone pays shouldn't prevent them from surviving. If those conditions are met everything else is negotiable.

 

[cybrsage]

Of course it is, don't be ridiculous. If the only form of taxation is sales tax, and you earn $1000 a month, how much of that will be spent on taxable purchases of various kinds of that salary as a percentage? Now if you earn $10million, how much, again as a percentage?

Not regressive my rear end...

You may like giving your rear end to poor people more than rich people, but that is not relevant here. If you ignore the rebates, sure, but then it would not be the fair tax any more. You might as well ignore the sun when talking about daylight.

Jesus christ, I'm saying nobody except the very rich earn very much through the efforts of our "value-adding" stock brokers and investment bankers, simply by function of not owning very much, or even any stock at all. Yes I agree, it's very difficult to comprehend this simple logic if you just don't WANT to understand.

You said nothing of the sort. You literally said "Not really, unless you're part of the very richest percents of society". I showed you that you are wrong. It is good that you are slowly learning here, but do not pretend you never said that.

Without stock brokers and fund managers, I could not retire via the money I make on my 401k without having to do a lot of work on my own. They add great value to me, for I have no desire to do that work. So far this year they have given me a 8.3% rate of return - pretty good, yes?

Strawman much, eh! I was speaking specifically of certain categories of uselessly rich people and you go dragging in all kinds of other non-related categories of people. Try to stick to the point, if that is at all possible for you.

Again, stop pretending you said something other than what you said. You even gave one example of someone who produces nothing. Using that as a guide, I can easily say a waitress produces nothing as well and should also gain your derision. You very specifically said "what makes you think a rich person necessarily produces anything?!" Are you now claiming you never said that?

You say "They just leech cash off of the financial market system to enrichen themselves. " Well, waitresses just leeches cash off the dining out market to enrichen themselves. See how silly your argument is, it works to bash those you do not wish to bash. The waitress is doing the same thing as the stock broker, only with less money involved. She is only a middle man, increasing the cost of your diner by doing something you could do for yourself if you so desired.

 

[Jaskalas]

If you paid taxes but 99% didn't would it bother you?

I'd become the 99%, the system would be unstable and collapse.

 

[Anarchist420]

One reason the FairTax sucks is because it focuses on being revenue neutral. I also wouldn't feel right collecting money from a friend and then handing it over to the Federal govt.

I don't really see much of a difference between the fair tax and the income tax.

 

[cybrsage]

Income tax does not tax income earned illegally - such as via drug dealers and prostitutes.