I'm trying to imagine a scenario where a 23% sales tax on everything won't hit the poor just as hard, if not harder, than income tax currently does. And that also doesn't still provide the same tax shelters that the rich and corporations already enjoy anyway. I mean, who is more likely to have and put more of their money into savings accounts, or have wealth growing financial accounts that wouldn't count as taxable? And how is this big sales tax going to be any less complex to devise and implement if you have to account for that (since, supposedly, this is supposed to make taxes fair and get rid of tax shelters and corporate welfare)?
Well, you're obviously thinking 23% sales tax is just going to be slapped on top of every product on store shelves and everything else will remain the same, you're talking about an entire revamp of the way taxes work.
There will be no income tax or payroll tax, meaning first and foremost you're going to take home your entire paycheck. So if you're making like 10 bucks an hour and you pay roughly 100 bucks a week in taxes, fees, etc. that's all gone (except union dues for union workers of course but that's not the government).
These taxes are figured into everything we buy so it will have a direct affect on prices on store shelves as well, in favor of lower prices.
From the Fair Tax website:
"Research on the price of consumer goods reveals that up to 20% of all prices today represent hidden income taxes and payroll taxes. Once these taxes are repealed and replaced with the FairTax, it is likely that market pressure would force retail prices to fall."
Secondly, it will remove price differences in making products at homewho are competing against importing tax free goods, which will make our products more competitive on the marketplace and drive down prices.
There will also be what is a called a "prebate" for lower income/middle class families to pay their taxes on their food each month, basically a small check that covers the typical taxes paid at the grocery for a family of X size per month.
Third, by turning the tax system into something that is taxing entirely at the consumer level, you're going to start taxing black market economies because every dollar that someone collects in, say, a drug deal, that they spend at the store will be taxed, and that's just one extreme example of how it expands the tax base in a fair way across the board.
There's so much more to it than just these things but there's a absolute TON of credible research over the past two decades into how this system would work and it benefits directly and effectively the lower income and middle class because it directly removes the entrenched tax burden on their shoulders, gives them all their money to spend as they will and allows them to pay as much or as little taxes as they want by merely choosing to purchase or not purchase non neccessity items.
Plan to replace the income tax with a 23% national sales tax. It's actually not a horrible idea.. effectively makes all savings accounts Roth IRAs...cuts out all the "coporate welfare" loopholes for corporations and wealthy self employed.....tax code becomes simplified.....collection service is already in place with state sales tax....
Er, I'm not a tax wonk, but there is at least one obvious aspect which is potentially an ultra-horrible idea. Replacing income tax with sales tax makes government revenue dependent on strong consumer performance. Though this is probably a more likely state of affairs in the US than anywhere else, it pretty much locks in all future governments to a set of economic policies focusing on encouraging spending. Instead of economic controls & govt revenue being based on the fact that people work (pretty much a constant), it will be based on how much people spend (much more variable). It removes any flexibility in the system. This is bad.
It might deal with some of those problems, but I guarantee you the tax code will become complex again, the corporations will find more loopholes. That brief respite is not a good trade-off for being utterly limited in the ability to respond to economic crisis.
In short: it's very, very stupid.
If you look around a bit, I'm fairly sure you can find a thousand and one tax wonk economists who will give plenty of other reasons it's a bad proposal.
Oh, and congrats for all those supporting Santos, er, Obama.
What you did there? I can totally see it.
Glad someone got it. It is quite freaky. If he wins, some people are totally going to start deifying Aaron Sorkin as Nostradamus v2000.
PS And here's hoping that Huckabee & Rommey both kill each other so McCain can emerge as the GOP contender a la the smart, reasonable, honest, older senator who ran against Santos. Next: world peace.
Not so much Sorkin seeing as how he left the show after the fourth season. Santos might have been name dropped in a random vote counting conversation earlier in the show, but the actual him running for president plot line wasn't until season six, so the guy who took over the show (John Wells) and butchered the fifth and sixth seasons before recovering a bit would be your psychic in question. And yeah, I see it, though if I had to guess it was more Wells seeing the '04 Democratic Convention speech and then having a liberal wet dream and making it the plot for his final season, not unlike the concept of Jed Bartlett.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I'm trying to imagine a scenario where a 23% sales tax on everything won't hit the poor just as hard, if not harder, than income tax currently does. And that also doesn't still provide the same tax shelters that the rich and corporations already enjoy anyway. I mean, who is more likely to have and put more of their money into savings accounts, or have wealth growing financial accounts that wouldn't count as taxable? And how is this big sales tax going to be any less complex to devise and implement if you have to account for that (since, supposedly, this is supposed to make taxes fair and get rid of tax shelters and corporate welfare)?
Well, you're obviously thinking 23% sales tax is just going to be slapped on top of every product on store shelves and everything else will remain the same, you're talking about an entire revamp of the way taxes work.
There will be no income tax or payroll tax, meaning first and foremost you're going to take home your entire paycheck. So if you're making like 10 bucks an hour and you pay roughly 100 bucks a week in taxes, fees, etc. that's all gone (except union dues for union workers of course but that's not the government).
These taxes are figured into everything we buy so it will have a direct affect on prices on store shelves as well, in favor of lower prices.
From the Fair Tax website:
"Research on the price of consumer goods reveals that up to 20% of all prices today represent hidden income taxes and payroll taxes. Once these taxes are repealed and replaced with the FairTax, it is likely that market pressure would force retail prices to fall."
Secondly, it will remove price differences in making products at homewho are competing against importing tax free goods, which will make our products more competitive on the marketplace and drive down prices.
There will also be what is a called a "prebate" for lower income/middle class families to pay their taxes on their food each month, basically a small check that covers the typical taxes paid at the grocery for a family of X size per month.
Third, by turning the tax system into something that is taxing entirely at the consumer level, you're going to start taxing black market economies because every dollar that someone collects in, say, a drug deal, that they spend at the store will be taxed, and that's just one extreme example of how it expands the tax base in a fair way across the board.
There's so much more to it than just these things but there's a absolute TON of credible research over the past two decades into how this system would work and it benefits directly and effectively the lower income and middle class because it directly removes the entrenched tax burden on their shoulders, gives them all their money to spend as they will and allows them to pay as much or as little taxes as they want by merely choosing to purchase or not purchase non neccessity items.
Of course, this still doesn't address the problem.
The less you make, the more of that money you spend on consumer goods. This means the less you make, the more your income is taxed.
When you spend 80% of your income, a 23% sales tax is a 18.4% income tax.
When you spend 20% of your income, a 23% sales tax is a 4.6% income tax.
This trend, combined with the fact that the less you make, the more of your income you do/need to spend, and you've got royal fuckage for the lower classes. All a prebate does is shift that tax burden upward to crush the middle class.
Not to mention the 23% is a pretty underhanded bit of spin. The sales tax will be 23% of the new amount, but in the real world what this amounts to is a 37% (I believe) increase on the cost of everything to make up the revenue.
Proponents keep leaning on the 23% numbers because polls show people get a lot less interested when you mention the real number.
"Assume there is a worker named Joe who earns $125 and spends all of his earnings. Let’s further assume that the government requires him to pay $25 in taxes.
If the government put a tax on Joe’s income, he would earn $125 before tax and would have $100 after tax to spend at the General Store. Thus, Joe has to earn $125 to have $100 to spend. Joe would also have to file an income tax return.
If the government put a tax on what Joe spends, he would earn $125 and would have $125 to spend at the store. Of the $125 paid by Joe to the storekeeper, $100 would be for the goods he bought at the store and $25 would be taxes that the storekeeper would send to the government. Joe would not have to file a tax return, as the storekeeper sends the tax in to the government.
Either way, Joe pays $25 in taxes and the government gets $25 in taxes. With a tax on income, Joe pays the $25 directly to the government, and with the tax on spending (sales tax), he pays the $25 in taxes indirectly when he buys something from the General Store. The General Store sends the tax that Joe paid to the government.
We may report the tax rate as $25/$125 = 20 percent, which is the tax-inclusive rate (meaning that the tax is included in the base). Alternately, we may think of the tax rate as $25/$100 = 25 percent, which is the tax-exclusive rate (meaning the tax is excluded from the base). The 23 percent FairTax rate set out in HR 25/S 1025 is a tax-inclusive rate, as is the current personal income tax, whereas most state-level sales taxes are quoted on a tax-exclusive basis. For ease of comparison, FairTax.org gives the tax rate both ways. Both rates are relevant, since the FairTax is replacing an income tax system, and 23 percent correctly represents the tax burden compared to the current system."
You have to recognize first and foremost that 100% of your paycheck will go into your pocket, after you purchase food and pay your taxes on your property if you're a homeowner, everything else is yours to spend where and when you will, you are only taxed on what you spend. It's literally putting the power of your money in your hands, and the choice of exactly how many taxes you pay a year in your hands.
I see an awful lot of rhetoric on this issue such as
Sigh, do we have to tread this ground again. A FlatTax ("Fair"Tax is a bullshit name trying to make it sound more appealing) is essentially a "Fuck the non-rich" tax.
But this really isn't the case, it's an emotional plea to try and stop reasoned people from looking at the facts. You tax only on consumption, the rich and the poor and the middle class get to choose how much in taxes they pay, plain and simple, especially with a prebate to the poor and middle class for their basic essentials each month.
The left doesn't like the idea because it shrinks the power of government over your money and the right doesn't like it because it keeps the rich people from being able to hide 70 % of their income in off shore accounts when it comes to claiming their yearly income to the feds and instead taxes them directly on the shit they buy.
If both sides hate it, it's probably a really really good idea.
Even though I don't plan on voting for him in the general election, I'm really glad Obama got this gut punch in on the Clinton machine.....They are so entrenched in politics it comes across as if they think it is their right to rule. He seems to want it for the right reasons, rather than just further enhancing his political power. Which even if I disagree with alot of his proposed policy, I like and respect.
Barring Hillary placing better in NH, I have a strong feeling that SC and NV will fall to his momentum. I loved some talking head on CNN (lol Clinton News Network rings so true after their poll predictions) saying that Florida could be Hillary's firewall.....completely ignoring the fact that we effectively have no delegates from moving up our primary, and that Obama is very well liked down here, because we have a lot of independents and affiliated voters that cross party lines.
I was equally glad to see that deusch Romney get taken down a couple pegs.....he's a fucking prick.
Man, I just heard Huckabee on CNN talking about his national sales tax plan. Dude is channeling Ron Paul. I dunno if he was talking like this before, but holy shit God please don't let this guy get the fucking presidency.
Plan to replace the income tax with a 23% national sales tax. It's actually not a horrible idea.. effectively makes all savings accounts Roth IRAs...cuts out all the "coporate welfare" loopholes for corporations and wealthy self employed.....tax code becomes simplified.....collection service is already in place with state sales tax....
..implementation is going to be fun times though. Lots of kicking and screaming, because first it has to get passed, and then it doesnt actually take effect until they repeal the 16th ammendment, which will be an even bigger bitch. It's the one thing that makes Huckabee not suck as bad as the rest of the Republican candidates.
Of course that would be an astonishingly regressive tax, leading to unprecedented levels of poverty, and thus welfare assistance, throughout the country unless we raise the minimum wage so that people can pay their taxes, which pretty much eliminates the economic momentum that would be created from this idea. Unless we're going the "fuck the poor" route, which would be okay I guess, but I'm not sure that would fly in a general or in the debate about the repeal of the 16th amendment.
Yes, because the government taking 23% of my paycheck before I even have a chance to spend it on tax-free food, energy, (and unless you own your home) housing is not regressive at all.
Are you seriously arguing that this will hurt poor people? Explain. Because I've been one of those "poor" people and the biggest fucking barrier to getting out of it was fucking income tax raping me right as I crossed the threshold.
Plan to replace the income tax with a 23% national sales tax. It's actually not a horrible idea.. effectively makes all savings accounts Roth IRAs...cuts out all the "coporate welfare" loopholes for corporations and wealthy self employed.....tax code becomes simplified.....collection service is already in place with state sales tax....
..implementation is going to be fun times though. Lots of kicking and screaming, because first it has to get passed, and then it doesnt actually take effect until they repeal the 16th ammendment, which will be an even bigger bitch. It's the one thing that makes Huckabee not suck as bad as the rest of the Republican candidates.
The "Fair Tax" (much more accurately described as the Flat Tax or a national consumption tax or a "brutally fuck the middle class in the nostrils" tax) could take effect without the repeal of the 16th Amendment, since the 16th Amendment doesn't mandate an income tax, it simply allows it.
The same folks who are pimping the "Fair Tax" are also hoping to repeal the 16th Amendment as well, simply because they sure to hate themselves some income tax.
The left doesn't like the idea because it shrinks the power of government over your money and the right doesn't like it because it keeps the rich people from being able to hide 70 % of their income in off shore accounts when it comes to claiming their yearly income to the feds and instead taxes them directly on the shit they buy.
If both sides hate it, it's probably a really really good idea.
Or a really obviously bad idea.
...and economists don't like the idea because it would fundamentally change the nature of earnings, consumption and government revenue, with wide-ranging unpredictable results. Oh, and institute a basic inflexibility in the US economic system that would make it more subject to market volatility while giving it less tools to deal with said volatility. How about you answer that problem. Think of the economists.
Will somebody please think of the economists!
Not Sarastro on
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
edited January 2008
Huh, C-SPAN with a stat- only three times have Iowa and New Hampshire agreed. All on the Dem side.
Those three: Carter, Gore and Kerry. So basically, if you take both, it's all over as far as the primaries, but it doesn't give you any help in the general.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
The left doesn't like the idea because it shrinks the power of government over your money and the right doesn't like it because it keeps the rich people from being able to hide 70 % of their income in off shore accounts when it comes to claiming their yearly income to the feds and instead taxes them directly on the shit they buy.
If both sides hate it, it's probably a really really good idea.
No, they don't like the idea because it utterly fucks the poor.
I was wrong; I called it that Mccain would be the victor in Iowa, either coming in 2nd or 3th. I figured that a lot of republicans would see what I see, namely that he is the only republican with a snowballs chance in hell in the general election.
He might still have a chance at the nomination, but I am droping my prediction and eating humble pie.
A Huckabee vs Obama would be a massacre for the republicans. Huckabee has got so much baggage from his Arkansa years and his inexspirience on foreign affairs cancels out Obama's same flaw. His domestic ideas are a shadow of Obama's, does he even have an idea on health care(info would be nice).
TL:dr: I was wrong on Mccain, Shinto was right.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
The left doesn't like the idea because it shrinks the power of government over your money and the right doesn't like it because it keeps the rich people from being able to hide 70 % of their income in off shore accounts when it comes to claiming their yearly income to the feds and instead taxes them directly on the shit they buy.
If both sides hate it, it's probably a really really good idea.
No, they don't like the idea because it utterly fucks the poor.
Seriously, I posted exactly WHY it fucks the poor like 5 posts up.
shryke on
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
edited January 2008
3th, Kipling? How do you pronounce that? Threeth? Thirth? Thith? Thth?
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
Yes, because the government taking 23% of my paycheck before I even have a chance to spend it on tax-free food, energy, (and unless you own your home) housing is not regressive at all.
Are you seriously arguing that this will hurt poor people? Explain. Because I've been one of those "poor" people and the biggest fucking barrier to getting out of it was fucking income tax raping me right as I crossed the threshold.
First off, without the "prebates" that Huckabee and some other (or maybe even most other) "Fair Tax" advocates are suggesting, the "Fair Tax" is regressive as hell.
With the "prebates", it shifts the regressive taxation burden from the poor to the moderately poor, or middle class, or whoever earns only a bit more than whatever the income cut-off for a "prebate" is, while the wealthy get a much lower tax burden, especially as a percentage of their income.
Lawndart on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Yes, because the government taking 23% of my paycheck before I even have a chance to spend it on tax-free food, energy, (and unless you own your home) housing is not regressive at all.
Are you seriously arguing that this will hurt poor people? Explain. Because I've been one of those "poor" people and the biggest fucking barrier to getting out of it was fucking income tax raping me right as I crossed the threshold.
You don't understand what progressive/regressive mean when it comes to taxation, do you? A sales tax is regressive because the less money you have, the greater your tax burden is:
The less you make, the more of that money you spend on consumer goods. This means the less you make, the more your income is taxed.
When you spend 80% of your income, a 23% sales tax is a 18.4% income tax.
When you spend 20% of your income, a 23% sales tax is a 4.6% income tax.
Edit: To clarify, the poor spend the majority of their money on necessities. The rich save the majority of their money, because they have so damn much of it. Therefore, the poor are disproportionately burdened.
Edit #2: Also, if you do away with income taxes, the super-rich won't need tax shelters. The interest generated by their immense wealth and revenue from their investments will now be tax-free!
Obama's position just sounds like he is being honest (intentional or otherwise) about the US's usual position on free trade. The way I see it the US (and indeed the EU) will always find it hard to be genuine Free traders because their central governments have to get internal agreement with a huge number of small sectional communities or interest groups that have effective vetos. So the farming state senators will nearly always limit or block any agriculture free trade change just as the industrial or fishing senators will do the same in their areas.
Take a look at any of the bilaterial trade agreements the US has signed in the last decade and see if you really think that is free trade. They are very much incrementalist and generally very protective of US interests - and they have largely been promoted by a "free trade" president (remember Bush being promoted as one?). I don't think they could get much worse without needing to be scrapped entirely.
So I don't really think any presidential candidate can promise much in the way of free trade because I don't think (in a normal situation) that they have any hope of delivering much. This annoys me, as a free trader and coming from a country that has lowered its trade barriers but hey, small centralised countries have the advantage when it comes to implementing policy change quickly. It is one trade off for being as weak as a kitten in other areas.
Also, this "fair tax" assumes that black markets won't spring up to avoid the sales tax. The thinking is that this tax will be like a funnel that every dollar going towards buying something will eventually end up in, but it looks more like a sieve to me. And, as someone mentioned rightly before, there are enough shenanigans going on now with the automatically deducted income tax. That national sales tax presents far more opportunities to game the system than income tax, in my view. I really want an explanation as to how this will not be as, if not more, complicated than income tax. And I'm still not convinced that it will do anything other than shift even more tax burden on the middle and lower classes.
Of course, this still doesn't address the problem.
The less you make, the more of that money you spend on consumer goods. This means the less you make, the more your income is taxed.
When you spend 80% of your income, a 23% sales tax is a 18.4% income tax.
When you spend 20% of your income, a 23% sales tax is a 4.6% income tax.
This trend, combined with the fact that the less you make, the more of your income you do/need to spend, and you've got royal fuckage for the lower classes. All a prebate does is shift that tax burden upward to crush the middle class.
With all due respect, it really does address the problem in very fundamental ways:
1. You will get every penny you earn to choose to spend where and when you will, you can't get less taxed than that, especially considering you get your tax money for food back at the beginning of each month whether you are lower income or middle class
2. The prices on store shelves will drop dramatically in response to the removal of the hidden taxes that lie throughout our society.
Both of these things directly benefit the poor.
Then you add on the no more hiding your total income in off shore accounts, instead you pay all your taxes when you buy some frivolous stuff like a nice car that the rich will go through, it's undeniable this is a good call for the poor across the board.
Or a really obviously bad idea.
...and economists don't like the idea because it would fundamentally change the nature of earnings, consumption and government revenue, with wide-ranging unpredictable results. Oh, and institute a basic inflexibility in the US economic system that would make it more subject to market volatility while giving it less tools to deal with said volatility. How about you answer that problem. Think of the economists.
First and foremost, it was economists who spent the millions of dollars on the research into the proposal and determined it was the most acceptable form of tax to the American people that would generate the money the government needs to function while being fair across the board.
A Huckabee vs Obama would be a massacre for the republicans. Huckabee has got so much baggage from his Arkansa years and his inexspirience on foreign affairs cancels out Obama's same flaw. His domestic ideas are a shadow of Obama's, does he even have an idea on health care(info would be nice).
Someone needs to learn a bit more about Huckabee's actual record, considering he has a really great record on fixing infrastructure, balancing a budget (250 million dollar deficit to 850 million dollar surplus in his years in office) healthcare, again, he has a solid record on healthcare in his state, amongst just a vast array of successes. The guy ran as a conservative in a state where 90% of th elected officials of Democrats and won re election, that wasn't just some fluke, he's a really strong candidate at the personal level. So too is Obama, fyi. That's why I like them both.
Obama really has NO record, which is a plus and a minus for him, but if it was a massacre it would be charisma and flat out likability combined with the historic nature of an Obama Presidency and the turn out of the minority vote in the South.
Obama is a damn likable, affable guy who people feel they can work with to bring consensus. Huckabee has that to some degree, Obama has it to the Nth degree, and it's that which will bring over independants and even some conservatives to Obama if he milks it and things work out for him.
Not to mention foreign policy is an issue they are both considered weak on experientially, which is why an Obama needs a Biden type (doesn't have to be Biden necessarily) as his VP and Huckabee needs a McCain type (again, doesn't have to be McCain_.
Hodj on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
With all due respect, it really does address the problem in very fundamental ways:
1. You will get every penny you earn to choose to spend where and when you will, you can't get less taxed than that, especially considering you get your tax money for food back at the beginning of each month whether you are lower income or middle class 2. The prices on store shelves will drop dramatically in response to the removal of the hidden taxes that lie throughout our society.
Both of these things directly benefit the poor.
This sounds less like a sound economic doctrine and more like a Christmas miracle.
Also, this "fair tax" assumes that black markets won't spring up to avoid the sales tax. The thinking is that this tax will be like a funnel that every dollar going towards buying something will eventually end up in, but it looks more like a sieve to me. And, as someone mentioned rightly before, there are enough shenanigans going on now with the automatically deducted income tax. That national sales tax presents far more opportunities to game the system than income tax, in my view. I really want an explanation as to how this will not be as, if not more, complicated than income tax. And I'm still not convinced that it will do anything other than shift even more tax burden on the middle and lower classes.
The black market can't avoid the taxes at the market counter that this proposal will create, actually.
Every time someone who sells a bag of weed and takes that money to the store to buy a pack of cigarettes and a pack of beer will be paying the taxes he avoided before at tax season by simply not reporting it.
Unless you really want to assume there's going to be a black market on nice cars and new televisions to avoid the at the counter retail tax?
...and economists don't like the idea because it would fundamentally change the nature of earnings, consumption and government revenue, with wide-ranging unpredictable results. Oh, and institute a basic inflexibility in the US economic system that would make it more subject to market volatility while giving it less tools to deal with said volatility. How about you answer that problem. Think of the economists.
First and foremost, it was economists who spent the millions of dollars on the research into the proposal and determined it was the most acceptable form of tax to the American people that would generate the money the government needs to function while being fair across the board.
Yes, because the government taking 23% of my paycheck before I even have a chance to spend it on tax-free food, energy, (and unless you own your home) housing is not regressive at all.
Are you seriously arguing that this will hurt poor people? Explain. Because I've been one of those "poor" people and the biggest fucking barrier to getting out of it was fucking income tax raping me right as I crossed the threshold.
First off, without the "prebates" that Huckabee and some other (or maybe even most other) "Fair Tax" advocates are suggesting, the "Fair Tax" is regressive as hell.
With the "prebates", it shifts the regressive taxation burden from the poor to the moderately poor, or middle class, or whoever earns only a bit more than whatever the income cut-off for a "prebate" is, while the wealthy get a much lower tax burden, especially as a percentage of their income.
Edit: To clarify, the poor spend the majority of their money on necessities. The rich save the majority of their money, because they have so damn much of it. Therefore, the poor are disproportionately burdened.
Edit #2: Also, if you do away with income taxes, the super-rich won't need tax shelters. The interest generated by their immense wealth and revenue from their investments will now be tax-free!
Most of those "neccessities" are not. Those that are, are already not taxed under current sales taxes, and wont be under a national sales tax. Food, water, not taxed. Energy, not taxed. Rent, not taxed. Clothing is, but as with all glorius percentages, dont buy expensive shit and you wont pay expensive taxes. Car? Buy used. Insurance? Not taxed. Gasoline? Short of national taxes on it ALREADY, it wont be taxed any extra.Best of all, you get the ability to save money pretax, helping you out of poverty. You can feed yourself, put a roof over your head, and get to and from your job without paying a dime in taxes, and your only paying taxes when you buy new clothes.
How exactly are poor people going to get raped when they dont buy homes, new cars, or cable tvs? Middle class, maybe. But the poor? Fuck I want some of that kool aid. Make the middle class taking a bigger hit argument maybe. But the poor?
Of course, this still doesn't address the problem.
The less you make, the more of that money you spend on consumer goods. This means the less you make, the more your income is taxed.
When you spend 80% of your income, a 23% sales tax is a 18.4% income tax.
When you spend 20% of your income, a 23% sales tax is a 4.6% income tax.
This trend, combined with the fact that the less you make, the more of your income you do/need to spend, and you've got royal fuckage for the lower classes. All a prebate does is shift that tax burden upward to crush the middle class.
With all due respect, it really does address the problem in very fundamental ways:
1. You will get every penny you earn to choose to spend where and when you will, you can't get less taxed than that, especially considering you get your tax money for food back at the beginning of each month whether you are lower income or middle class
2. The prices on store shelves will drop dramatically in response to the removal of the hidden taxes that lie throughout our society.
Both of these things directly benefit the poor.
Then you add on the no more hiding your total income in off shore accounts, instead you pay all your taxes when you buy some frivolous stuff like a nice car that the rich will go through, it's undeniable this is a good call for the poor across the board.
Blah blah blah. Your still ignoring the simple fact that THE LESS YOU MAKE, THE LARGER THE PERCENTAGE OF YOUR INCOME YOU SPEND.
Read that. Read it again. Let it sink the fuck in. If you disagree, go educate yourself on basic (REALLY basic) economics.
Under a flat-tax system, the more of your income you spend, the more your taxed. Ergo, people who spend more of their income (ie - the poor) have their income taxed the most.
Also, this "fair tax" assumes that black markets won't spring up to avoid the sales tax. The thinking is that this tax will be like a funnel that every dollar going towards buying something will eventually end up in, but it looks more like a sieve to me. And, as someone mentioned rightly before, there are enough shenanigans going on now with the automatically deducted income tax. That national sales tax presents far more opportunities to game the system than income tax, in my view. I really want an explanation as to how this will not be as, if not more, complicated than income tax. And I'm still not convinced that it will do anything other than shift even more tax burden on the middle and lower classes.
The black market can't avoid the taxes at the market counter that this proposal will create, actually.
Every time someone who sells a bag of weed and takes that money to the store to buy a pack of cigarettes and a pack of beer will be paying the taxes he avoided before at tax season by simply not reporting it.
Unless you really want to assume there's going to be a black market on nice cars and new televisions to avoid the at the counter retail tax?
The Government is STILL missing out on the tax money from the bag of weed. Once that transaction is through, the money becomes the dealer's income. They may end up with sales tax out of the dealer's income, but they lose out on sales tax out of the buyer's income.
This is, of course, in contrast to the way things are now, where the dealer's income is often not properly taxed.
It's fine to disagree, if you do feel it hurts the poor unfairly, that's fine, I'm not here to convince anyone but the way I see it, it is truly the fairest way to tax and still make enough money for the government to stay afloat.
This PDF has more info if you're really interested in what the proposal claims instead of just my rhetoric and other's rhetoric on the subject.
If we're going to completely rewrite out tax code, why not advocate implementing the NIT so as to keep the inherently progressive nature of the tax system rather than try and shoehorn a solution to minimize fucking over the poor and middle class with an inherently regressive tax system?
Yes, because the government taking 23% of my paycheck before I even have a chance to spend it on tax-free food, energy, (and unless you own your home) housing is not regressive at all.
Are you seriously arguing that this will hurt poor people? Explain. Because I've been one of those "poor" people and the biggest fucking barrier to getting out of it was fucking income tax raping me right as I crossed the threshold.
First off, without the "prebates" that Huckabee and some other (or maybe even most other) "Fair Tax" advocates are suggesting, the "Fair Tax" is regressive as hell.
With the "prebates", it shifts the regressive taxation burden from the poor to the moderately poor, or middle class, or whoever earns only a bit more than whatever the income cut-off for a "prebate" is, while the wealthy get a much lower tax burden, especially as a percentage of their income.
Most of those "neccessities" are not. Those that are, are already not taxed under current sales taxes, and wont be under a national sales tax. Food, water, not taxed. Energy, not taxed. Rent, not taxed. Clothing is, but as with all glorius percentages, dont buy expensive shit and you wont pay expensive taxes. Car? Buy used. Insurance? Not taxed. Gasoline? Short of national taxes on it ALREADY, it wont be taxed any extra.Best of all, you get the ability to save money pretax, helping you out of poverty. You can feed yourself, put a roof over your head, and get to and from your job without paying a dime in taxes, and your only paying taxes when you buy new clothes.
How exactly are poor people going to get raped when they dont buy homes, new cars, or cable tvs? Middle class, maybe. But the poor? Fuck I want some of that kool aid. Make the middle class taking a bigger hit argument maybe. But the poor?
Yes, cause fucking the middle class is so much better. Let's grind those fuckers into the ground.
Like we've all said, right from the start. If you just do straight flattax, with no rebates, it fucks the poor. Every rebate, prebate, exemption and whatever just shifts the fucking upward.
It's fine to disagree, if you do feel it hurts the poor unfairly, that's fine, I'm not here to convince anyone but the way I see it, it is truly the fairest way to tax and still make enough money for the government to stay afloat.
This PDF has more info if you're really interested in what the proposal claims instead of just my rhetoric and other's rhetoric on the subject.
Amazing, the website for a lunatic fringe claims they have authentic experts confirming their ideas are right! It's almost as if there was some motivation on the part of the people presenting this information to make the facts appear a certain way.
It's a shame that we don't have a word to describe this phenomena. Something like "bias," "distortion," or "outright lies" would be a good fit, but they're already taken.
...and economists don't like the idea because it would fundamentally change the nature of earnings, consumption and government revenue, with wide-ranging unpredictable results. Oh, and institute a basic inflexibility in the US economic system that would make it more subject to market volatility while giving it less tools to deal with said volatility. How about you answer that problem. Think of the economists.
First and foremost, it was economists who spent the millions of dollars on the research into the proposal and determined it was the most acceptable form of tax to the American people that would generate the money the government needs to function while being fair across the board.
That's your answer?
No shit, economists researched an economics proposal. Though I highly doubt they funded it of their own pocket like you are suggesting.
But here's a shocker: economists don't all agree. They aren't a hive mind. [EDIT: Fuck, Evander got there way before me]
Some of them disagree with the proposal, for example using the above problem. In fact, a lot of them disagree. So instead of saying 'olol economists did proposal so economists all lik it' like an utter mouth-breather, how about you answer the problem I pointed out.
It's fine to disagree, if you do feel it hurts the poor unfairly, that's fine, I'm not here to convince anyone but the way I see it, it is truly the fairest way to tax and still make enough money for the government to stay afloat.
This PDF has more info if you're really interested in what the proposal claims instead of just my rhetoric and other's rhetoric on the subject.
Amazing, the website for a lunatic fringe claims they have authentic experts confirming their ideas are right! It's almost as if there was some motivation on the part of the people presenting this information to make the facts appear a certain way.
It's a shame that we don't have a word to describe this phenomena. Something like "bias," "distortion," or "outright lies" would be a good fit, but they're already taken.
Best of all, you get the ability to save money pretax, helping you out of poverty. You can feed yourself, put a roof over your head, and get to and from your job without paying a dime in taxes, and your only paying taxes when you buy new clothes.
Except you've raised the poverty line, negating the benefit of having more to save on each paycheck.
Blah blah blah. Your still ignoring the simple fact that THE LESS YOU MAKE, THE LARGER THE PERCENTAGE OF YOUR INCOME YOU SPEND.
Read that. Read it again. Let it sink the fuck in. If you disagree, go educate yourself on basic (REALLY basic) economics.
Under a flat-tax system, the more of your income you spend, the more your taxed. Ergo, people who spend more of their income (ie - the poor) have their income taxed the most.
First and foremost, no reason to get nasty, I've been completely unconfrontational on this issue.
Secondly, and more importantly, again, the prices on all goods across the board will be lowered, you will only spend what you CHOOSE TO SPEND, the necessities AKA FOOD, GAS, ETC. you get the TAXES back for.
You will ALWAYS have to buy those products but under the fair tax the poor and middle class are not paying taxes on necessities at. all.
So you're arguing from a factually wrong point, you are assuming they are going to be paying more in taxes because they spend more of their money on necessities, under this plan, they buy their necessities and do not pay taxes on them at all, ergo, they do not pay more taxes on basic necessities, they pay less, and they have more of their money to spend on those necessities as they see fit, instead of it going off to the government without ever being touched by the person who earned it in the first place.
Hodj on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
edited January 2008
It's probably also not a good idea to institute one giant disincentive to buying shit, when a healthy economy is predicated on a lot of people buying shit.
Amazing, the website for a lunatic fringe claims they have authentic experts confirming their ideas are right! It's almost as if there was some motivation on the part of the people presenting this information to make the facts appear a certain way.
It's a shame that we don't have a word to describe this phenomena. Something like "bias," "distortion," or "outright lies" would be a good fit, but they're already taken.
Masturprebation
I'm not sure what words you're trying to combine here, and I'm not sure I want to know
With all due respect, it really does address the problem in very fundamental ways:
1. You will get every penny you earn to choose to spend where and when you will, you can't get less taxed than that, especially considering you get your tax money for food back at the beginning of each month whether you are lower income or middle class
So if I CHOOSE to not buy anything besides food...I won't get taxed. Wow that sounds...err like I might as well join a monastery.
You didn't address how the wealthy will always spend a much smaller percentage of their income on taxable goods than the middle class.
Posts
Well, you're obviously thinking 23% sales tax is just going to be slapped on top of every product on store shelves and everything else will remain the same, you're talking about an entire revamp of the way taxes work.
There will be no income tax or payroll tax, meaning first and foremost you're going to take home your entire paycheck. So if you're making like 10 bucks an hour and you pay roughly 100 bucks a week in taxes, fees, etc. that's all gone (except union dues for union workers of course but that's not the government).
These taxes are figured into everything we buy so it will have a direct affect on prices on store shelves as well, in favor of lower prices.
From the Fair Tax website:
"Research on the price of consumer goods reveals that up to 20% of all prices today represent hidden income taxes and payroll taxes. Once these taxes are repealed and replaced with the FairTax, it is likely that market pressure would force retail prices to fall."
Secondly, it will remove price differences in making products at homewho are competing against importing tax free goods, which will make our products more competitive on the marketplace and drive down prices.
There will also be what is a called a "prebate" for lower income/middle class families to pay their taxes on their food each month, basically a small check that covers the typical taxes paid at the grocery for a family of X size per month.
Third, by turning the tax system into something that is taxing entirely at the consumer level, you're going to start taxing black market economies because every dollar that someone collects in, say, a drug deal, that they spend at the store will be taxed, and that's just one extreme example of how it expands the tax base in a fair way across the board.
There's so much more to it than just these things but there's a absolute TON of credible research over the past two decades into how this system would work and it benefits directly and effectively the lower income and middle class because it directly removes the entrenched tax burden on their shoulders, gives them all their money to spend as they will and allows them to pay as much or as little taxes as they want by merely choosing to purchase or not purchase non neccessity items.
Not so much Sorkin seeing as how he left the show after the fourth season. Santos might have been name dropped in a random vote counting conversation earlier in the show, but the actual him running for president plot line wasn't until season six, so the guy who took over the show (John Wells) and butchered the fifth and sixth seasons before recovering a bit would be your psychic in question. And yeah, I see it, though if I had to guess it was more Wells seeing the '04 Democratic Convention speech and then having a liberal wet dream and making it the plot for his final season, not unlike the concept of Jed Bartlett.
The less you make, the more of that money you spend on consumer goods. This means the less you make, the more your income is taxed.
When you spend 80% of your income, a 23% sales tax is a 18.4% income tax.
When you spend 20% of your income, a 23% sales tax is a 4.6% income tax.
This trend, combined with the fact that the less you make, the more of your income you do/need to spend, and you've got royal fuckage for the lower classes. All a prebate does is shift that tax burden upward to crush the middle class.
From their own website http://www.fairtax.org/site/News2?news_iv_ctrl=1541&page=NewsArticle&id=8248 (there is a chart there as well as this)
"Assume there is a worker named Joe who earns $125 and spends all of his earnings. Let’s further assume that the government requires him to pay $25 in taxes.
If the government put a tax on Joe’s income, he would earn $125 before tax and would have $100 after tax to spend at the General Store. Thus, Joe has to earn $125 to have $100 to spend. Joe would also have to file an income tax return.
If the government put a tax on what Joe spends, he would earn $125 and would have $125 to spend at the store. Of the $125 paid by Joe to the storekeeper, $100 would be for the goods he bought at the store and $25 would be taxes that the storekeeper would send to the government. Joe would not have to file a tax return, as the storekeeper sends the tax in to the government.
Either way, Joe pays $25 in taxes and the government gets $25 in taxes. With a tax on income, Joe pays the $25 directly to the government, and with the tax on spending (sales tax), he pays the $25 in taxes indirectly when he buys something from the General Store. The General Store sends the tax that Joe paid to the government.
We may report the tax rate as $25/$125 = 20 percent, which is the tax-inclusive rate (meaning that the tax is included in the base). Alternately, we may think of the tax rate as $25/$100 = 25 percent, which is the tax-exclusive rate (meaning the tax is excluded from the base). The 23 percent FairTax rate set out in HR 25/S 1025 is a tax-inclusive rate, as is the current personal income tax, whereas most state-level sales taxes are quoted on a tax-exclusive basis. For ease of comparison, FairTax.org gives the tax rate both ways. Both rates are relevant, since the FairTax is replacing an income tax system, and 23 percent correctly represents the tax burden compared to the current system."
You have to recognize first and foremost that 100% of your paycheck will go into your pocket, after you purchase food and pay your taxes on your property if you're a homeowner, everything else is yours to spend where and when you will, you are only taxed on what you spend. It's literally putting the power of your money in your hands, and the choice of exactly how many taxes you pay a year in your hands.
I see an awful lot of rhetoric on this issue such as
But this really isn't the case, it's an emotional plea to try and stop reasoned people from looking at the facts. You tax only on consumption, the rich and the poor and the middle class get to choose how much in taxes they pay, plain and simple, especially with a prebate to the poor and middle class for their basic essentials each month.
The left doesn't like the idea because it shrinks the power of government over your money and the right doesn't like it because it keeps the rich people from being able to hide 70 % of their income in off shore accounts when it comes to claiming their yearly income to the feds and instead taxes them directly on the shit they buy.
If both sides hate it, it's probably a really really good idea.
Yes, because the government taking 23% of my paycheck before I even have a chance to spend it on tax-free food, energy, (and unless you own your home) housing is not regressive at all.
Are you seriously arguing that this will hurt poor people? Explain. Because I've been one of those "poor" people and the biggest fucking barrier to getting out of it was fucking income tax raping me right as I crossed the threshold.
The "Fair Tax" (much more accurately described as the Flat Tax or a national consumption tax or a "brutally fuck the middle class in the nostrils" tax) could take effect without the repeal of the 16th Amendment, since the 16th Amendment doesn't mandate an income tax, it simply allows it.
The same folks who are pimping the "Fair Tax" are also hoping to repeal the 16th Amendment as well, simply because they sure to hate themselves some income tax.
Or a really obviously bad idea.
...and economists don't like the idea because it would fundamentally change the nature of earnings, consumption and government revenue, with wide-ranging unpredictable results. Oh, and institute a basic inflexibility in the US economic system that would make it more subject to market volatility while giving it less tools to deal with said volatility. How about you answer that problem. Think of the economists.
Will somebody please think of the economists!
Those three: Carter, Gore and Kerry. So basically, if you take both, it's all over as far as the primaries, but it doesn't give you any help in the general.
No, they don't like the idea because it utterly fucks the poor.
He might still have a chance at the nomination, but I am droping my prediction and eating humble pie.
A Huckabee vs Obama would be a massacre for the republicans. Huckabee has got so much baggage from his Arkansa years and his inexspirience on foreign affairs cancels out Obama's same flaw. His domestic ideas are a shadow of Obama's, does he even have an idea on health care(info would be nice).
TL:dr: I was wrong on Mccain, Shinto was right.
Seriously, I posted exactly WHY it fucks the poor like 5 posts up.
First off, without the "prebates" that Huckabee and some other (or maybe even most other) "Fair Tax" advocates are suggesting, the "Fair Tax" is regressive as hell.
With the "prebates", it shifts the regressive taxation burden from the poor to the moderately poor, or middle class, or whoever earns only a bit more than whatever the income cut-off for a "prebate" is, while the wealthy get a much lower tax burden, especially as a percentage of their income.
You don't understand what progressive/regressive mean when it comes to taxation, do you? A sales tax is regressive because the less money you have, the greater your tax burden is:
Edit: To clarify, the poor spend the majority of their money on necessities. The rich save the majority of their money, because they have so damn much of it. Therefore, the poor are disproportionately burdened.
Edit #2: Also, if you do away with income taxes, the super-rich won't need tax shelters. The interest generated by their immense wealth and revenue from their investments will now be tax-free!
Take a look at any of the bilaterial trade agreements the US has signed in the last decade and see if you really think that is free trade. They are very much incrementalist and generally very protective of US interests - and they have largely been promoted by a "free trade" president (remember Bush being promoted as one?). I don't think they could get much worse without needing to be scrapped entirely.
So I don't really think any presidential candidate can promise much in the way of free trade because I don't think (in a normal situation) that they have any hope of delivering much. This annoys me, as a free trader and coming from a country that has lowered its trade barriers but hey, small centralised countries have the advantage when it comes to implementing policy change quickly. It is one trade off for being as weak as a kitten in other areas.
NEVER EVER UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF CHUCK NORRIS AND OPRAH!!
Fallacy of the excluded middle.
Damn, there's a fallacy for everything!
Fallacy of false comprehensiveness.
With all due respect, it really does address the problem in very fundamental ways:
1. You will get every penny you earn to choose to spend where and when you will, you can't get less taxed than that, especially considering you get your tax money for food back at the beginning of each month whether you are lower income or middle class
2. The prices on store shelves will drop dramatically in response to the removal of the hidden taxes that lie throughout our society.
Both of these things directly benefit the poor.
Then you add on the no more hiding your total income in off shore accounts, instead you pay all your taxes when you buy some frivolous stuff like a nice car that the rich will go through, it's undeniable this is a good call for the poor across the board.
First and foremost, it was economists who spent the millions of dollars on the research into the proposal and determined it was the most acceptable form of tax to the American people that would generate the money the government needs to function while being fair across the board.
Someone needs to learn a bit more about Huckabee's actual record, considering he has a really great record on fixing infrastructure, balancing a budget (250 million dollar deficit to 850 million dollar surplus in his years in office) healthcare, again, he has a solid record on healthcare in his state, amongst just a vast array of successes. The guy ran as a conservative in a state where 90% of th elected officials of Democrats and won re election, that wasn't just some fluke, he's a really strong candidate at the personal level. So too is Obama, fyi. That's why I like them both.
Obama really has NO record, which is a plus and a minus for him, but if it was a massacre it would be charisma and flat out likability combined with the historic nature of an Obama Presidency and the turn out of the minority vote in the South.
Obama is a damn likable, affable guy who people feel they can work with to bring consensus. Huckabee has that to some degree, Obama has it to the Nth degree, and it's that which will bring over independants and even some conservatives to Obama if he milks it and things work out for him.
Not to mention foreign policy is an issue they are both considered weak on experientially, which is why an Obama needs a Biden type (doesn't have to be Biden necessarily) as his VP and Huckabee needs a McCain type (again, doesn't have to be McCain_.
It gets bonus points for being a formal fallacy, too. Ad hom and its common cousins are all informal.
Fallacy of Appeal to Logic
This sounds less like a sound economic doctrine and more like a Christmas miracle.
The black market can't avoid the taxes at the market counter that this proposal will create, actually.
Every time someone who sells a bag of weed and takes that money to the store to buy a pack of cigarettes and a pack of beer will be paying the taxes he avoided before at tax season by simply not reporting it.
Unless you really want to assume there's going to be a black market on nice cars and new televisions to avoid the at the counter retail tax?
Economists are not all one single hive mind.
Most of those "neccessities" are not. Those that are, are already not taxed under current sales taxes, and wont be under a national sales tax. Food, water, not taxed. Energy, not taxed. Rent, not taxed. Clothing is, but as with all glorius percentages, dont buy expensive shit and you wont pay expensive taxes. Car? Buy used. Insurance? Not taxed. Gasoline? Short of national taxes on it ALREADY, it wont be taxed any extra.Best of all, you get the ability to save money pretax, helping you out of poverty. You can feed yourself, put a roof over your head, and get to and from your job without paying a dime in taxes, and your only paying taxes when you buy new clothes.
How exactly are poor people going to get raped when they dont buy homes, new cars, or cable tvs? Middle class, maybe. But the poor? Fuck I want some of that kool aid. Make the middle class taking a bigger hit argument maybe. But the poor?
*edit - it left off your edits from the quote.
Blah blah blah. Your still ignoring the simple fact that THE LESS YOU MAKE, THE LARGER THE PERCENTAGE OF YOUR INCOME YOU SPEND.
Read that. Read it again. Let it sink the fuck in. If you disagree, go educate yourself on basic (REALLY basic) economics.
Under a flat-tax system, the more of your income you spend, the more your taxed. Ergo, people who spend more of their income (ie - the poor) have their income taxed the most.
The Government is STILL missing out on the tax money from the bag of weed. Once that transaction is through, the money becomes the dealer's income. They may end up with sales tax out of the dealer's income, but they lose out on sales tax out of the buyer's income.
This is, of course, in contrast to the way things are now, where the dealer's income is often not properly taxed.
It's the result of close to two decades of peer reviewed research.
Look, everything anyone needs to know about it is right there, on their website:
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main
It's fine to disagree, if you do feel it hurts the poor unfairly, that's fine, I'm not here to convince anyone but the way I see it, it is truly the fairest way to tax and still make enough money for the government to stay afloat.
This PDF has more info if you're really interested in what the proposal claims instead of just my rhetoric and other's rhetoric on the subject.
Yes, cause fucking the middle class is so much better. Let's grind those fuckers into the ground.
Like we've all said, right from the start. If you just do straight flattax, with no rebates, it fucks the poor. Every rebate, prebate, exemption and whatever just shifts the fucking upward.
Amazing, the website for a lunatic fringe claims they have authentic experts confirming their ideas are right! It's almost as if there was some motivation on the part of the people presenting this information to make the facts appear a certain way.
It's a shame that we don't have a word to describe this phenomena. Something like "bias," "distortion," or "outright lies" would be a good fit, but they're already taken.
That's your answer?
No shit, economists researched an economics proposal. Though I highly doubt they funded it of their own pocket like you are suggesting.
But here's a shocker: economists don't all agree. They aren't a hive mind. [EDIT: Fuck, Evander got there way before me]
Some of them disagree with the proposal, for example using the above problem. In fact, a lot of them disagree. So instead of saying 'olol economists did proposal so economists all lik it' like an utter mouth-breather, how about you answer the problem I pointed out.
Except you've raised the poverty line, negating the benefit of having more to save on each paycheck.
First and foremost, no reason to get nasty, I've been completely unconfrontational on this issue.
Secondly, and more importantly, again, the prices on all goods across the board will be lowered, you will only spend what you CHOOSE TO SPEND, the necessities AKA FOOD, GAS, ETC. you get the TAXES back for.
You will ALWAYS have to buy those products but under the fair tax the poor and middle class are not paying taxes on necessities at. all.
So you're arguing from a factually wrong point, you are assuming they are going to be paying more in taxes because they spend more of their money on necessities, under this plan, they buy their necessities and do not pay taxes on them at all, ergo, they do not pay more taxes on basic necessities, they pay less, and they have more of their money to spend on those necessities as they see fit, instead of it going off to the government without ever being touched by the person who earned it in the first place.
I'm not sure what words you're trying to combine here, and I'm not sure I want to know
So if I CHOOSE to not buy anything besides food...I won't get taxed. Wow that sounds...err like I might as well join a monastery.
You didn't address how the wealthy will always spend a much smaller percentage of their income on taxable goods than the middle class.