• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

MONEY finds flaw in 'FairTax' bestseller

I

imported_tss4

Golden Member
We've had a lot of debate on this forum about the Fair Tax proposal. While I have my reservations about the idea, I do think its an interesting idea that is worthy of consideration. However, it appears that the writers of the book weren't exacly forthcoming with the fact that under thier plan, wages would go down. So while, prices would stay the same, our salaries would not. Supposedly, they'll clarify that point in a future book.

MONEY finds flaw in 'FairTax' bestseller

The "Fair Tax" movement is based on the idea that most federal taxes, including Social Security and payroll taxes, should be eliminated and replaced instead with a consumption tax on retail goods and services.

Supporters of the Fair Tax plan, which was designed by a group called the Americans for Fair Taxation, maintain that this method of taxation makes saving and investing more attractive and would spur economic growth. They also claim it would simplify the tax code.

"The Fair Tax Book," which argues the benefits of the plan, has been a New York Times bestseller since hitting bookshelves in August. But the book's authors, Republican Congressman John Linder of Georgia and conservative radio host Neal Boortz, make a critical mistake in their supporting argument, according to MONEY.

Boortz and Linder argue that individuals would be better off following a switch from an income-tax structure to a national sales tax in part because they would pocket 100 percent of their paychecks.

While consumers would pay a federal sales tax on purchased items, the authors argue that prices at the store would stay the same. The reason: everyone involved in the process of production would no longer be paying taxes, so they could charge less for their goods and labor.

If true, that would mean a dramatic increase in Americans' purchasing power.

But, according to the MONEY report, the book fails to make clear that, in order for pre-tax prices to fall so sharply, companies would also have to cut wages they pay.

"Sure, you'd get to 'keep 100 percent of your paycheck,' as Boortz and Linder repeatedly write, but it would be a smaller paycheck," MONEY senior editor Pat Regnier writes. "That's kind of a big thing to leave out."

According to the report, Boortz denied that "The Fair Tax Book" intentionally overpromises, but admitted that the matter is confusing and that future printings will include a correction.

A national sales tax proposal is likely to be under consideration by a presidential panel organized to present plans for income tax reform.
Click to expand...
 
As I stated in the previous threads about this subject, you can't get money for nothing. It's not possible to eliminate 2.3 trillion in taxes, levy a sales tax without raising prices and still collect the 2.3 trillion. There is no way that 2.3 trillion is passed on to the products sold. If that were true, then you woudn't be paying income tax as the tax would have been already built into the product, as some have suggested here.

Always a catch....
 
Originally posted by: tss4
We've had a lot of debate on this forum about the Fair Tax proposal. While I have my reservations about the idea, I do think its an interesting idea that is worthy of consideration. However, it appears that the writers of the book weren't exacly forthcoming with the fact that under thier plan, wages would go down. So while, prices would stay the same, our salaries would not. Supposedly, they'll clarify that point in a future book.

MONEY finds flaw in 'FairTax' bestseller

The "Fair Tax" movement is based on the idea that most federal taxes, including Social Security and payroll taxes, should be eliminated and replaced instead with a consumption tax on retail goods and services.

Supporters of the Fair Tax plan, which was designed by a group called the Americans for Fair Taxation, maintain that this method of taxation makes saving and investing more attractive and would spur economic growth. They also claim it would simplify the tax code.

"The Fair Tax Book," which argues the benefits of the plan, has been a New York Times bestseller since hitting bookshelves in August. But the book's authors, Republican Congressman John Linder of Georgia and conservative radio host Neal Boortz, make a critical mistake in their supporting argument, according to MONEY.

Boortz and Linder argue that individuals would be better off following a switch from an income-tax structure to a national sales tax in part because they would pocket 100 percent of their paychecks.

While consumers would pay a federal sales tax on purchased items, the authors argue that prices at the store would stay the same. The reason: everyone involved in the process of production would no longer be paying taxes, so they could charge less for their goods and labor.

If true, that would mean a dramatic increase in Americans' purchasing power.

But, according to the MONEY report, the book fails to make clear that, in order for pre-tax prices to fall so sharply, companies would also have to cut wages they pay.

"Sure, you'd get to 'keep 100 percent of your paycheck,' as Boortz and Linder repeatedly write, but it would be a smaller paycheck," MONEY senior editor Pat Regnier writes. "That's kind of a big thing to leave out."

According to the report, Boortz denied that "The Fair Tax Book" intentionally overpromises, but admitted that the matter is confusing and that future printings will include a correction.

A national sales tax proposal is likely to be under consideration by a presidential panel organized to present plans for income tax reform.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

And? Isn't 100% of a little bit smaller paycheck better than 80% of a slightly bigger paycheck?
 
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Originally posted by: tss4
We've had a lot of debate on this forum about the Fair Tax proposal. While I have my reservations about the idea, I do think its an interesting idea that is worthy of consideration. However, it appears that the writers of the book weren't exacly forthcoming with the fact that under thier plan, wages would go down. So while, prices would stay the same, our salaries would not. Supposedly, they'll clarify that point in a future book.

MONEY finds flaw in 'FairTax' bestseller

The "Fair Tax" movement is based on the idea that most federal taxes, including Social Security and payroll taxes, should be eliminated and replaced instead with a consumption tax on retail goods and services.

Supporters of the Fair Tax plan, which was designed by a group called the Americans for Fair Taxation, maintain that this method of taxation makes saving and investing more attractive and would spur economic growth. They also claim it would simplify the tax code.

"The Fair Tax Book," which argues the benefits of the plan, has been a New York Times bestseller since hitting bookshelves in August. But the book's authors, Republican Congressman John Linder of Georgia and conservative radio host Neal Boortz, make a critical mistake in their supporting argument, according to MONEY.

Boortz and Linder argue that individuals would be better off following a switch from an income-tax structure to a national sales tax in part because they would pocket 100 percent of their paychecks.

While consumers would pay a federal sales tax on purchased items, the authors argue that prices at the store would stay the same. The reason: everyone involved in the process of production would no longer be paying taxes, so they could charge less for their goods and labor.

If true, that would mean a dramatic increase in Americans' purchasing power.

But, according to the MONEY report, the book fails to make clear that, in order for pre-tax prices to fall so sharply, companies would also have to cut wages they pay.

"Sure, you'd get to 'keep 100 percent of your paycheck,' as Boortz and Linder repeatedly write, but it would be a smaller paycheck," MONEY senior editor Pat Regnier writes. "That's kind of a big thing to leave out."

According to the report, Boortz denied that "The Fair Tax Book" intentionally overpromises, but admitted that the matter is confusing and that future printings will include a correction.

A national sales tax proposal is likely to be under consideration by a presidential panel organized to present plans for income tax reform.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

And? Isn't 100% of a little bit smaller paycheck better than 80% of a slightly bigger paycheck?
Click to expand...
That really depends on whether it has more purchasing power, now doesn't it?
 
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Originally posted by: tss4
We've had a lot of debate on this forum about the Fair Tax proposal. While I have my reservations about the idea, I do think its an interesting idea that is worthy of consideration. However, it appears that the writers of the book weren't exacly forthcoming with the fact that under thier plan, wages would go down. So while, prices would stay the same, our salaries would not. Supposedly, they'll clarify that point in a future book.

MONEY finds flaw in 'FairTax' bestseller

The "Fair Tax" movement is based on the idea that most federal taxes, including Social Security and payroll taxes, should be eliminated and replaced instead with a consumption tax on retail goods and services.

Supporters of the Fair Tax plan, which was designed by a group called the Americans for Fair Taxation, maintain that this method of taxation makes saving and investing more attractive and would spur economic growth. They also claim it would simplify the tax code.

"The Fair Tax Book," which argues the benefits of the plan, has been a New York Times bestseller since hitting bookshelves in August. But the book's authors, Republican Congressman John Linder of Georgia and conservative radio host Neal Boortz, make a critical mistake in their supporting argument, according to MONEY.

Boortz and Linder argue that individuals would be better off following a switch from an income-tax structure to a national sales tax in part because they would pocket 100 percent of their paychecks.

While consumers would pay a federal sales tax on purchased items, the authors argue that prices at the store would stay the same. The reason: everyone involved in the process of production would no longer be paying taxes, so they could charge less for their goods and labor.

If true, that would mean a dramatic increase in Americans' purchasing power.

But, according to the MONEY report, the book fails to make clear that, in order for pre-tax prices to fall so sharply, companies would also have to cut wages they pay.

"Sure, you'd get to 'keep 100 percent of your paycheck,' as Boortz and Linder repeatedly write, but it would be a smaller paycheck," MONEY senior editor Pat Regnier writes. "That's kind of a big thing to leave out."

According to the report, Boortz denied that "The Fair Tax Book" intentionally overpromises, but admitted that the matter is confusing and that future printings will include a correction.

A national sales tax proposal is likely to be under consideration by a presidential panel organized to present plans for income tax reform.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

And? Isn't 100% of a little bit smaller paycheck better than 80% of a slightly bigger paycheck?
Click to expand...
That really depends on whether it has more purchasing power, now doesn't it?
Click to expand...

It also depends on whether a person believes the gov't is entitled to the fruits of your labor before themself.
 
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Originally posted by: tss4
We've had a lot of debate on this forum about the Fair Tax proposal. While I have my reservations about the idea, I do think its an interesting idea that is worthy of consideration. However, it appears that the writers of the book weren't exacly forthcoming with the fact that under thier plan, wages would go down. So while, prices would stay the same, our salaries would not. Supposedly, they'll clarify that point in a future book.

MONEY finds flaw in 'FairTax' bestseller

The "Fair Tax" movement is based on the idea that most federal taxes, including Social Security and payroll taxes, should be eliminated and replaced instead with a consumption tax on retail goods and services.

Supporters of the Fair Tax plan, which was designed by a group called the Americans for Fair Taxation, maintain that this method of taxation makes saving and investing more attractive and would spur economic growth. They also claim it would simplify the tax code.

"The Fair Tax Book," which argues the benefits of the plan, has been a New York Times bestseller since hitting bookshelves in August. But the book's authors, Republican Congressman John Linder of Georgia and conservative radio host Neal Boortz, make a critical mistake in their supporting argument, according to MONEY.

Boortz and Linder argue that individuals would be better off following a switch from an income-tax structure to a national sales tax in part because they would pocket 100 percent of their paychecks.

While consumers would pay a federal sales tax on purchased items, the authors argue that prices at the store would stay the same. The reason: everyone involved in the process of production would no longer be paying taxes, so they could charge less for their goods and labor.

If true, that would mean a dramatic increase in Americans' purchasing power.

But, according to the MONEY report, the book fails to make clear that, in order for pre-tax prices to fall so sharply, companies would also have to cut wages they pay.

"Sure, you'd get to 'keep 100 percent of your paycheck,' as Boortz and Linder repeatedly write, but it would be a smaller paycheck," MONEY senior editor Pat Regnier writes. "That's kind of a big thing to leave out."

According to the report, Boortz denied that "The Fair Tax Book" intentionally overpromises, but admitted that the matter is confusing and that future printings will include a correction.

A national sales tax proposal is likely to be under consideration by a presidential panel organized to present plans for income tax reform.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

And? Isn't 100% of a little bit smaller paycheck better than 80% of a slightly bigger paycheck?
Click to expand...
That really depends on whether it has more purchasing power, now doesn't it?
Click to expand...

It also depends on whether a person believes the gov't is entitled to the fruits of your labor before themself.
Click to expand...

What, you are more important than national defense?
 
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Originally posted by: tss4
We've had a lot of debate on this forum about the Fair Tax proposal. While I have my reservations about the idea, I do think its an interesting idea that is worthy of consideration. However, it appears that the writers of the book weren't exacly forthcoming with the fact that under thier plan, wages would go down. So while, prices would stay the same, our salaries would not. Supposedly, they'll clarify that point in a future book.

MONEY finds flaw in 'FairTax' bestseller

The "Fair Tax" movement is based on the idea that most federal taxes, including Social Security and payroll taxes, should be eliminated and replaced instead with a consumption tax on retail goods and services.

Supporters of the Fair Tax plan, which was designed by a group called the Americans for Fair Taxation, maintain that this method of taxation makes saving and investing more attractive and would spur economic growth. They also claim it would simplify the tax code.

"The Fair Tax Book," which argues the benefits of the plan, has been a New York Times bestseller since hitting bookshelves in August. But the book's authors, Republican Congressman John Linder of Georgia and conservative radio host Neal Boortz, make a critical mistake in their supporting argument, according to MONEY.

Boortz and Linder argue that individuals would be better off following a switch from an income-tax structure to a national sales tax in part because they would pocket 100 percent of their paychecks.

While consumers would pay a federal sales tax on purchased items, the authors argue that prices at the store would stay the same. The reason: everyone involved in the process of production would no longer be paying taxes, so they could charge less for their goods and labor.

If true, that would mean a dramatic increase in Americans' purchasing power.

But, according to the MONEY report, the book fails to make clear that, in order for pre-tax prices to fall so sharply, companies would also have to cut wages they pay.

"Sure, you'd get to 'keep 100 percent of your paycheck,' as Boortz and Linder repeatedly write, but it would be a smaller paycheck," MONEY senior editor Pat Regnier writes. "That's kind of a big thing to leave out."

According to the report, Boortz denied that "The Fair Tax Book" intentionally overpromises, but admitted that the matter is confusing and that future printings will include a correction.

A national sales tax proposal is likely to be under consideration by a presidential panel organized to present plans for income tax reform.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

And? Isn't 100% of a little bit smaller paycheck better than 80% of a slightly bigger paycheck?
Click to expand...
That really depends on whether it has more purchasing power, now doesn't it?
Click to expand...

It also depends on whether a person believes the gov't is entitled to the fruits of your labor before themself.
Click to expand...

What, you are more important than national defense?
Click to expand...

:roll: You know that has nothing to do with what I said. I did not say I was against taxes, so save your garbage for someone who thinks there should be no taxes.
 
Think of it like this- How much of truly huge incomes is spent on consumables or durable goods? Very little. So it leaves more of that millions/month to re-invest, a lot more...

How much of low/middle incomes is spent on consumables and durable goods? A much larger percentage.

So it moves the tax burden down the scale... of course.
 
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Think of it like this- How much of truly huge incomes is spent on consumables or durable goods? Very little. So it leaves more of that millions/month to re-invest, a lot more...

How much of low/middle incomes is spent on consumables and durable goods? A much larger percentage.

So it moves the tax burden down the scale... of course.
Click to expand...

:roll:

You have a problem with people re-investing? Isn't investment and that flow of money what keeps the economy growing? It seems you people who want to tax tax tax don't understand the whole picture of the Economy.

Question for you though, you and other liberals keep whining about this moving down the scale BS, but exactly why should a rich person pay a higher percentage of their earnings? Do you support social engineering? (which is what "progressive" taxation is)
 
Yes Shades, I support progressive taxation as a form of economic self defense for the vast majority of Americans who aren't wealthy.

Try not to use the Whole "social engineering" smear, OK? The whole effort to eliminate estate taxes is a form of the same, only in reverse, with the beneficiaries receiving huge unearned benefits... the Paris Hilton taxcut...

The purpose being to promote a hereditary oligarchy.

The so-called "Fair Tax" plan actually calls for the wealthy to pay a lower % of their income in taxes than the rest of us, as I pointed out, above....
 
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Yes Shades, I support progressive taxation as a form of economic self defense for the vast majority of Americans who aren't wealthy.

Try not to use the Whole "social engineering" smear, OK? The whole effort to eliminate estate taxes is a form of the same, only in reverse, with the beneficiaries receiving huge unearned benefits... the Paris Hilton taxcut...

The purpose being to promote a hereditary oligarchy.

The so-called "Fair Tax" plan actually calls for the wealthy to pay a lower % of their income in taxes than the rest of us, as I pointed out, above....
Click to expand...

Actually the estate tax elimination was an attempt to take some of the social engineering aspect out of our tax structure, not to "promote" anything. Yes, it helps farmers pass their farms down to their kids but that's hardly promoting "oligarchy".

No, the fair tax calls for people to all pay the same tax on items they use/purchase. It has nothing to do with income because it's not a labor tax - it's a spending tax. See, it takes your "progressive" social engineering out of the system and puts everyone on an equal plane.
 
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Originally posted by: tss4
We've had a lot of debate on this forum about the Fair Tax proposal. While I have my reservations about the idea, I do think its an interesting idea that is worthy of consideration. However, it appears that the writers of the book weren't exacly forthcoming with the fact that under thier plan, wages would go down. So while, prices would stay the same, our salaries would not. Supposedly, they'll clarify that point in a future book.

MONEY finds flaw in 'FairTax' bestseller

The "Fair Tax" movement is based on the idea that most federal taxes, including Social Security and payroll taxes, should be eliminated and replaced instead with a consumption tax on retail goods and services.

Supporters of the Fair Tax plan, which was designed by a group called the Americans for Fair Taxation, maintain that this method of taxation makes saving and investing more attractive and would spur economic growth. They also claim it would simplify the tax code.

"The Fair Tax Book," which argues the benefits of the plan, has been a New York Times bestseller since hitting bookshelves in August. But the book's authors, Republican Congressman John Linder of Georgia and conservative radio host Neal Boortz, make a critical mistake in their supporting argument, according to MONEY.

Boortz and Linder argue that individuals would be better off following a switch from an income-tax structure to a national sales tax in part because they would pocket 100 percent of their paychecks.

While consumers would pay a federal sales tax on purchased items, the authors argue that prices at the store would stay the same. The reason: everyone involved in the process of production would no longer be paying taxes, so they could charge less for their goods and labor.

If true, that would mean a dramatic increase in Americans' purchasing power.

But, according to the MONEY report, the book fails to make clear that, in order for pre-tax prices to fall so sharply, companies would also have to cut wages they pay.

"Sure, you'd get to 'keep 100 percent of your paycheck,' as Boortz and Linder repeatedly write, but it would be a smaller paycheck," MONEY senior editor Pat Regnier writes. "That's kind of a big thing to leave out."

According to the report, Boortz denied that "The Fair Tax Book" intentionally overpromises, but admitted that the matter is confusing and that future printings will include a correction.

A national sales tax proposal is likely to be under consideration by a presidential panel organized to present plans for income tax reform.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

And? Isn't 100% of a little bit smaller paycheck better than 80% of a slightly bigger paycheck?
Click to expand...

Save your garbage for people that can't think. 100% of 70% is not as good as 80% of 100% and any idiot knows it. Geez calling your point garbage sure felt good. Suddenly I don't hate myself anymore and just feel great, or infinitely superior to you. Man, what a great day.
 
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Originally posted by: tss4
We've had a lot of debate on this forum about the Fair Tax proposal. While I have my reservations about the idea, I do think its an interesting idea that is worthy of consideration. However, it appears that the writers of the book weren't exacly forthcoming with the fact that under thier plan, wages would go down. So while, prices would stay the same, our salaries would not. Supposedly, they'll clarify that point in a future book.

MONEY finds flaw in 'FairTax' bestseller

The "Fair Tax" movement is based on the idea that most federal taxes, including Social Security and payroll taxes, should be eliminated and replaced instead with a consumption tax on retail goods and services.

Supporters of the Fair Tax plan, which was designed by a group called the Americans for Fair Taxation, maintain that this method of taxation makes saving and investing more attractive and would spur economic growth. They also claim it would simplify the tax code.

"The Fair Tax Book," which argues the benefits of the plan, has been a New York Times bestseller since hitting bookshelves in August. But the book's authors, Republican Congressman John Linder of Georgia and conservative radio host Neal Boortz, make a critical mistake in their supporting argument, according to MONEY.

Boortz and Linder argue that individuals would be better off following a switch from an income-tax structure to a national sales tax in part because they would pocket 100 percent of their paychecks.

While consumers would pay a federal sales tax on purchased items, the authors argue that prices at the store would stay the same. The reason: everyone involved in the process of production would no longer be paying taxes, so they could charge less for their goods and labor.

If true, that would mean a dramatic increase in Americans' purchasing power.

But, according to the MONEY report, the book fails to make clear that, in order for pre-tax prices to fall so sharply, companies would also have to cut wages they pay.

"Sure, you'd get to 'keep 100 percent of your paycheck,' as Boortz and Linder repeatedly write, but it would be a smaller paycheck," MONEY senior editor Pat Regnier writes. "That's kind of a big thing to leave out."

According to the report, Boortz denied that "The Fair Tax Book" intentionally overpromises, but admitted that the matter is confusing and that future printings will include a correction.

A national sales tax proposal is likely to be under consideration by a presidential panel organized to present plans for income tax reform.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

And? Isn't 100% of a little bit smaller paycheck better than 80% of a slightly bigger paycheck?
Click to expand...

Save your garbage for people that can't think. 100% of 70% is not as good as 80% of 100% and any idiot knows it. Geez calling your point garbage sure felt good. Suddenly I don't hate myself anymore and just feel great, or infinitely superior to you. Man, what a great day.
Click to expand...

100% of 90 is more than 80% of 100. So why don't you save your garbage for people who can't think. There is also principle behind people choosing what their earning do instead of your social engineering deciding.
 
Nice bit of misinformation, Shades. Agricultural holdings are already largely exempt. Try again, though.

The rest is so transparent as to be laughable.
 
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Nice bit of misinformation, Shades. Agricultural holdings are already largely exempt. Try again, though.

The rest is so transparent as to be laughable.
Click to expand...

All of SOG post are laughable. Not a signle famly farm has ever been lost because of the estate tax.
 
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Nice bit of misinformation, Shades. Agricultural holdings are already largely exempt. Try again, though.

The rest is so transparent as to be laughable.
Click to expand...

Can't blame him. The "OH NOES! THE FARMERS DONE GONNA LOSE THEIR FARMS!" line is a Republican talking point, despite the lack of honesty in the statement.
 
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Originally posted by: tss4
We've had a lot of debate on this forum about the Fair Tax proposal. While I have my reservations about the idea, I do think its an interesting idea that is worthy of consideration. However, it appears that the writers of the book weren't exacly forthcoming with the fact that under thier plan, wages would go down. So while, prices would stay the same, our salaries would not. Supposedly, they'll clarify that point in a future book.

MONEY finds flaw in 'FairTax' bestseller

The "Fair Tax" movement is based on the idea that most federal taxes, including Social Security and payroll taxes, should be eliminated and replaced instead with a consumption tax on retail goods and services.

Supporters of the Fair Tax plan, which was designed by a group called the Americans for Fair Taxation, maintain that this method of taxation makes saving and investing more attractive and would spur economic growth. They also claim it would simplify the tax code.

"The Fair Tax Book," which argues the benefits of the plan, has been a New York Times bestseller since hitting bookshelves in August. But the book's authors, Republican Congressman John Linder of Georgia and conservative radio host Neal Boortz, make a critical mistake in their supporting argument, according to MONEY.

Boortz and Linder argue that individuals would be better off following a switch from an income-tax structure to a national sales tax in part because they would pocket 100 percent of their paychecks.

While consumers would pay a federal sales tax on purchased items, the authors argue that prices at the store would stay the same. The reason: everyone involved in the process of production would no longer be paying taxes, so they could charge less for their goods and labor.

If true, that would mean a dramatic increase in Americans' purchasing power.

But, according to the MONEY report, the book fails to make clear that, in order for pre-tax prices to fall so sharply, companies would also have to cut wages they pay.

"Sure, you'd get to 'keep 100 percent of your paycheck,' as Boortz and Linder repeatedly write, but it would be a smaller paycheck," MONEY senior editor Pat Regnier writes. "That's kind of a big thing to leave out."

According to the report, Boortz denied that "The Fair Tax Book" intentionally overpromises, but admitted that the matter is confusing and that future printings will include a correction.

A national sales tax proposal is likely to be under consideration by a presidential panel organized to present plans for income tax reform.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

And? Isn't 100% of a little bit smaller paycheck better than 80% of a slightly bigger paycheck?
Click to expand...

And??? My point was that this proposal has not been fully debated. Clearly, its not as simple as orignally presented (same income, more buying power). Instead we have less income and more buying power. What does that equate to for the average tax payer? That needs to be more fully developed by the authors of this proposal. I don't see how that's being unreasonable.
 
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
The so-called "Fair Tax" plan actually calls for the wealthy to pay a lower % of their income in taxes than the rest of us, as I pointed out, above....
Click to expand...

It's more complex than that. The tax rate is the same, but the rebate concept means that those with lower incomes/consumption actually pay taxes at a lower rate. You can't say, absent data on spending habits, what it would do to taxes as a percentage of income. Of course, the fair tax is specifically not an income tax. Those that CONSUME more would pay higher taxes.

This can be argued as a good thing. It would drive consumption down and savings up, helping the trade deficit in the process.
 
Originally posted by: ciba

This can be argued as a good thing. It would drive consumption down and savings up, helping the trade deficit in the process.
Click to expand...

Flip side: Could kill US manufacturing at an even quicker pace. Economy built on the US consumer would fall hard without that same consumer spending.
 
Please, ciba, the vast majority of really huge incomes simply can't and won't be spent on taxable goods and services. No tax on real estate, stocks, bonds, derivatives, paid up life insurance, ivy league tuition, personal assistants, nannies, chefs, etc...

Which is why it's important to levy taxes at the front end, at the level of income, rather than at the back end, on consumption, which is just another way of saying "sales tax"- which are widely regarded as regressive. Despite the low end rebates, this plan is really no different...
 
Like I said, Jhhnn, without extensive data you cannot tell what bracket of the population is taxed at a higher rate. I think the FairTax is a great concept, but they have a lot of work to do before they get anywhere. I think you're being dishonest by saying that under no circumstances would you support a FairTax-style scheme. Your argument ignores the ultra-wealthy that pay miniscule amounts of tax proportionate to their income.

I'm of the opinion that people should be able to provide for themselves and luxuries should be taxed. This is what the FairTax strives to do.

Engineer: I agree. It could certainly stall the economy. I don't think our level of spending (compared to production) is sustainable. I haven't formed an opinion on whether consumption should be reigned in or if the economy should deflate on its own.
 
I hven't claimed that the current system of taxing passive income at lower rates than earned income is fair, at all- it's not. But it's a product of the same kind of thinking that brings this sort of proposal, driven by a desire to move the burden of taxation down the foodchain.

As relative affluence increases, so does the ability to shift spending away from taxable expenditures. More of high incomes is truly discretionary, so you need to account for that somehow, which consumption taxes simply can't accomplish, unless applied to all purchases...

And, of course, these things are always discussed in a revenue neutral or slightly revenue negative kind of scenario, which avoids the whole point- current taxrates as compared to spending are not sustainable. Taking that into account, the rates involved for such proposals get out of hand rather quickly.

We're living an illusion based on debt. The sooner we call on all Americans to sacrifice, the less sacrifice will be necessary from each of us. And we need to call on those who have the most to lose and the greatest ability to pay to make the greatest sacrifices, something we'll not see from those currently in power or from proposals they support. Even as the House cuts services to those at the bottom, they're proposing new tax breaks for those at the top... they'll crow about making govt smaller, even as they shift the balance furter in the wrong direction. One step forward and two steps back isn't really progress, at all, unless your goal is to cripple the govt entirely..
 
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Nice bit of misinformation, Shades. Agricultural holdings are already largely exempt. Try again, though.

The rest is so transparent as to be laughable.
Click to expand...

All of SOG post are laughable. Not a signle famly farm has ever been lost because of the estate tax.
Click to expand...

That is a lie, but keep thinking that. Family farm operations are not exempt from the estate tax. Sure there are ways to work around the estate tax for people but it doesn't mean that there should be an estate tax to begin with. So far the only lame excuse for that tax is this supposed "oligarchy". Sounds like social engineering is all you got.
 
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Nice bit of misinformation, Shades. Agricultural holdings are already largely exempt. Try again, though.

The rest is so transparent as to be laughable.
Click to expand...

All of SOG post are laughable. Not a signle famly farm has ever been lost because of the estate tax.
Click to expand...

That is a lie, but keep thinking that. Family farm operations are not exempt from the estate tax. Sure there are ways to work around the estate tax for people but it doesn't mean that there should be an estate tax to begin with. So far the only lame excuse for that tax is this supposed "oligarchy". Sounds like social engineering is all you got.
Click to expand...

If it is a lie give a case of a family farm taken because of the estate tax. Very few family farmers are wroth more then 600k or is it a million now. As for needed the tax I think it is need to fund the goverment and has the added benifit of preventing an oligarchy. As tax is going to have social engineering effects.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top