Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Well who knows if this piece will ever make it us consumers.....(probably not) however is the fair tax law that is proposed really fair?

What tax law? Could you supply a link please?

Yup this is a very interesting plan and its been out for a long time but just doesn't seem to catch alot of momentum

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34039

Thankyou for that, and this sounds fairly good, really good infact. Though SpellJammer wouldn't mind paying high taxes if they went to something useful for once. But this works too..

Well in a capitalistic society which is driven by consumers this is a fairly good way to spread the tax to all.

Illigal immigrants get to pay taxes, business's save a ton on payroll...the rich since they "buy" more can contribute to the level of purchases but not nec. cry about 40 percent in income tax

anyway I think its interesting and can get rid of the outdated tax laws we currently have.

You seriously want to have a regressive tax as your main taxation system?

The Stone Age called- they want their wheel back...

Yup and complicated does not mean better........

Hey look the wheel has even more use today then ever before!

Simplify and model the tax system on your economic structure (capitalism)

Yeah right.

This tax beneifts only the rich, and it stomps the hell out of the Middle Class. it means, proportionate to income, poor people pay more on any good not lucky enough to be designanted 'essential' than rich people. A tax that is proportionately higher on the poor than rich? It is unfair at the most basic level.

Furthermore, I don't know what that bullcrap being suggested by the article of evetyone having a lot more money is. Newsflash- the only way people have a lot more money is if taxes are cut. No matter how logical they want to make that seem, there is no other way that it works!

Besides which, corporations and companies will still add on to make up tax costs because there are plenty of other taxes they still have to pay- like Capital Gains for example, unless you want to shut that down as well, which I am sure the very rich will thank you for, for making them richer.

Ushgarak, both of SpellJammer's parents make minimum wage, he thinks he'd know if this effects the poor or not..

And yes, in the grand scheme of things, it isn't a tremendous help to us. But you know what? Something is better then nothing..

This IS nothing! It is means of making the rich pay less, that's all. Oh, whopee doo, that's progressive...

When has the middle class not been the most burdened with taxs?

The rich have so SO many tax shelters they do ridiculuos things with their money what this does is makes them accountable.

As well as we get a sizeable increase in tax money from all the illegal immigrants that come to work in the USA and send all their money home without paying the same tax's just undercutting jobs and placing a burden on our society with medical bills, housing etc etc etc

Originally posted by Ushgarak

Besides which, corporations and companies will still add on to make up tax costs because there are plenty of other taxes they still have to pay- like Capital Gains for example, unless you want to shut that down as well, which I am sure the very rich will thank you for, for making them richer.

Could you possibly clarify this paragraph, I'm not sure I understood what you meant.

So that's what attracts you most? Squeezing the immigrants? You'll get bugger all from them that would actually massively affect the country, and besides which, do you have nay idea how much lagrer the black market will become if the only official tax is sales taax? Why would you think this is a magical, unbeatable solution?

This is a nursery school idea. A first year Economics undergrad could point out why logic, intelligence and history shows that an idea like this is shot full of holes. It's obscene.

And you think the way to help the burden on the middle class is to make it offiical??

It;s unfair, it is arbitrary, and it is eventually counter-logical. All 'Pay as you spend' taxes are unfair to those with lower incomes and that cannot be avoided by any means. The pathetic lure of 'everyone would have more money under this system' is ptitiful.

Capital gains tax stops you avoiding tax by ploughing it all into something solid- like property- and making money off its increase in value instead. As all businesses increase in value like that, such a tax is quite important to order to stop people sidestepping tax by trading cash for stuff.

But it's only something rich people can use, hence it only affects the rich. The article suggests prices would drop as companies wouldn';t be being taxed any more, but with any logic, they actually still would be- not to mention the basic obviousness that their costs would go up because all their acquisitions would become more expensive due to this tax idea! So they would have to pass the costs onto the customer anyway. Which is such an obvious point, I cannot believe the article tried to pretend it would not happen.

If you want a simple tax, go for flat rate income, not all sales.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Capital gains tax stops you avoiding tax by ploughing it all into something solid- like property- and making money off its increase in value instead. As all businesses increase in value like that, such a tax is quite important to order to stop people sidestepping tax by trading cash for stuff.

But it's only something rich people can use, hence it only affects the rich. The article suggests prices would drop as companies wouldn';t be being taxed any more, but with any logic, they actually still would be- not to mention the basic obviousness that their costs would go up because all their acquisitions would become more expensive by due to this tax idea! So they would have to pass the costs onto the customer anyway. Which is such an obvious point, I cannot believe the article tried to pretend it would not happen.

If you want a simple tax, go for flat rate income, not all sales.

I see what you mean, companies don't actually pay CGT though.

See now I can go on and on about this but if you REALLY want to take a step back here to radify, change , alter the current system is bollucks and the main reason it no longer makes sense for the "average" person who pays tax's (yeah all of us.)

So squeezing immigrants is certainly something I bounce around with joy about however I find it amusing that these economists and all that are against this are for more confusing rules so the govt can get larger and we pay more taxes for that to have more of your rich people pay for lawyers who understand the tax code and absolutley ABUSE the system cuz they have the money to do this.

So what were you saying now about the rich and the current tax code? They are the only ones that can abuse this system because they can afford to while no one else can.

At least that shouldn't be enshrined in the system! You want a system by which it is actually designed for the rich to be richer! Why would you think that an improvement?

And as I have outlined above, it doesan;t work. And, again, if you want a dead simple tax, go for flat rate! Plenty of countries are now doing just that and the debate about it is starting up in the UK as well. Look it up, it's quite a big thing- and it makes ten times more sense than this silly plan.

Economists are experts- you should think about why they oppose this.

Flat-rate seems to have been quite effective where it has been used, and it seems to achieve the effects that this idea hopes to achieve.

Any chance you can get a source that is not based around trying to back this fundamentally flawed idea? That list of yours is full of unsubstantiated opinion. That kicking off with the 16 Amendment thing is a good example- so what if Flat Rate doesn't repeal it? It's only this sales tax diea which makes out that it NEEDS repealing- so that's circular logic. Likewise it trumpeting the abolition of Corporate tax. That only works as a positive if you assume the Fair Tax's own idea that it needs abolishing- more going in circles.

The only reason individuals don't file under this 'Fair' (and it is anything but) system is because they are being screwed opver by a system they don't even get any documentation about, and so can't fight.

It assumed a flat rate won't stay flat which... well, I doubt I need to point out why THAT is puely speculative. I may as well attack how the idea of what is and is not an 'essentia' good will drift under the 'Fair' system, much as it has with VAT in the UK.

And interesting to note that this 'Fair' tax is interested in protectionist import taxes... no chance of global fair trade, eh? Ahh, how the rich must love it...

And I simply cannot fathom that source's logic about interest rates. That just seems to make no sense.

I don't quite understand why it attracts foreign investment when all their costs to buy in the US increase 23%, also.

Certainly here is a more open view stating both the pro's and con's from an economist........
http://economics.about.com/cs/taxpolicy/a/fairtax.htm

I like how he certainly does open up some different views on this...

One aspect of the discussion that I think has been overlooked in this debate is the fact that corporations don't actually pay taxes. All they do is pass on their tax bill to their customers. So while it's true that a 30% sales tax sounds crazy high, it sounds a bit more reasonable when you realize that something like 20% of what we pay to a corporation actually goes to pay for their taxes.

Example:

Current System: I earn $10/hr. after taxes I keep $7. I want to buy a TV that costs $100. To earn that $100 I have to work a little over 14 hours.

Fairtax: I earn $10/hr. I keep all of it. I want that same TV I only have to work 10 hours. This is not mentioning that because of their own tax savings combined with competition the price of that TV might be more like $80.

Savings under the Fair Tax plan: 4-6 hours of work.

Sign me up for the fairtax plan.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
This IS nothing! It is means of making the rich pay less, that's all. Oh, whopee doo, that's progressive...

Ushgarak, is the point of taxation to penalize the rich or to raise revenue? You seem confused on this point.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
So that's what attracts you most? Squeezing the immigrants? You'll get bugger all from them that would actually massively affect the country, and besides which, do you have nay idea how much lagrer the black market will become if the only official tax is sales taax? Why would you think this is a magical, unbeatable solution?

This is a nursery school idea. A first year Economics undergrad could point out why logic, intelligence and history shows that an idea like this is shot full of holes. It's obscene.

And you think the way to help the burden on the middle class is to make it offiical??

It;s unfair, it is arbitrary, and it is eventually counter-logical. All 'Pay as you spend' taxes are unfair to those with lower incomes and that cannot be avoided by any means. The pathetic lure of 'everyone would have more money under this system' is ptitiful.

Ok. History check here. The Federal Income Tax didn't even exist until 1862 and, when it was inaugerated, the top tax bracket was a whopping 5%! 3 years after the end of the Civil War, the tax was repealed. From 1868 until 1913, when the 16th amendment was passed, government revenues came from custom duties, excise taxes, and taxes based on the sale of liquor and tobacco. In other words, the system you describe as being inpracticable, illogical, and too stupid to contemplate was, in fact, the system that this county used for much of its early history.

Why is it unfair and unprogressive to tax based on consumption? Is it more enlightened to draw class/income lines and conduct political wars over which income bracket gets whacked the worst? You seem to argue that it is axiomatic that rich people should always share a disproportionate burden. I think this thinking is completelly irrational and based on little more than class hatred. Is this your logic, for instance, when you go out to dinner with friends and the bill comes? Regardless of what is eaten by each person, does the highest income earner shoulder a progressively higher burden of the bill? Let's say you earn $50,000 per year and I earn $100,000. But you had the fillet mignon for dinner and I had the soup and house salad. Despite the fact that your share of the $100 bill is $80, should I have to pay more because I earn more? If any logic comes into play, it would seem to argue for a per person itemization based on consumption, not the other way around.

Originally posted by docb77
One aspect of the discussion that I think has been overlooked in this debate is the fact that corporations don't actually pay taxes. All they do is pass on their tax bill to their customers. So while it's true that a 30% sales tax sounds crazy high, it sounds a bit more reasonable when you realize that something like 20% of what we pay to a corporation actually goes to pay for their taxes.

Example:

Current System: I earn $10/hr. after taxes I keep $7. I want to buy a TV that costs $100. To earn that $100 I have to work a little over 14 hours.

Fairtax: I earn $10/hr. I keep all of it. I want that same TV I only have to work 10 hours. This is not mentioning that because of their own tax savings combined with competition the price of that TV might be more like $80.

Savings under the Fair Tax plan: 4-6 hours of work.

Sign me up for the fairtax plan.

I just realized that I had made a small miscalculation in my example. The $80 figure would be the price before the tax was added, if no market pressures changed the price up or down.

so $80 + 30% fairtax = $104


The final price would be slightly higher than under the current system. But since I'm still getting the entire $10/hr from my check I still save almost 4 hours worth of work.

Even if the company decided to be greedy and keep the $100 starting price it would be:


$100 + 30% fairtax = $130

at $10/hr it would take 13 hours to earn that TV, so I would still save at least an hour of work.

Didn't read the whole thread of course...........but

I HATE ALL TAXES.....It wasn't until WWII, I think, That it was that we had the income tax, and it was only to be temporary......now look!!

It's all a money game......for instance here, in the US, when the economy is good, kids are left to their parents and the state tries to work with them......when the economy is bad, more children are taken out of families and put into foster care, because for each one the gov. makes money......also, we have a new law here, that if one is pulled over of certain offences, or commit certain offences, there is a new tax that not only are they to pay the court, and state as used to be, but now, you pay 2 and 3 years of costs...........I know people that work in the court system.

Deb, We all know that taxes suck, but they are a fact of life. The fair tax is just an attempt to make the system more equitable. A way to fund the government without playing all those "money games".

Check out www.fairtax.org for a better explanation of how that would work.

OK........but I hate taxes, it a money game.....and we as a society can work with each other to get things done WITHOUT taxes..........I believe this........

If taxes keep going at this rate, we will all be working to pay the government which IMO is too large anyway.......What do they call it now?? Socialism......I'm against it.

Originally posted by debbiejo
OK........but I hate taxes, it a money game.....and we as a society can work with each other to get things done WITHOUT taxes..........I believe this........

If taxes keep going at this rate, we will all be working to pay the government which IMO is too large anyway.......What do they call it now?? Socialism......I'm against it.

I agree, government needs to be more limited. But there are certain things that the government has to take care of. Defense is the Big one, but infrastructure comes to mind too. A lot of the stuff that the federal government does should probably shifted to a more local level, but that's really not what this proposal is about. It's about making the tax code simpler and putting control of it in the hands of the people.

It is im my view un Constitutionial.......Look at the history of it.

No, the Constitution allows for the govt. to raise funds. Add the 16th ammendment to that and income taxes are currently constitutional.

The Govt. does need money, it needs to be held to account for what it takes and what it spends though.

The const...............in the fact of the old taxes f what I Ssa after wWII................IS FALSE.

MONEY, MONEY...................ALWAYS MONEY AND NOTHING ELSE...you don't think so?..............Look at your history!!!!!!!

Originally posted by debbiejo
The const...............in the fact of the old taxes f what I Ssa after wWII................IS FALSE.

MONEY, MONEY...................ALWAYS MONEY AND NOTHING ELSE...you don't think so?..............Look at your history!!!!!!!

While I do think that there is a lot of truth in the Constitution, I don't think that it is necessarily in the administrative methods that were laid out. That being said, I do think that the income tax, and property taxes, are the wrong way to go about funding the constitutional operations of the Government.

Taxes, on their own, aren't inherently wrong. What is taxation without representation. And while we do get to elect representatives in our govt. More and more I get the feeling that they are only interested in staying in power rather than actually representing those who elected them. That's what's wrong with the current system.

Originally posted by docb77
While I do think that there is a lot of truth in the Constitution, I don't think that it is necessarily in the administrative methods that were laid out. That being said, I do think that the income tax, and property taxes, are the wrong way to go about funding the constitutional operations of the Government.

Taxes, on their own, aren't inherently wrong. What is taxation without representation. And while we do get to elect representatives in our govt. More and more I get the feeling that they are only interested in staying in power rather than actually representing those who elected them. That's what's wrong with the current system.

Income tax and the IRS are both abominations. I'm definitely a big advocate of the straight-up consumption tax.

We've become such sheep about the taxation of our income. Part of the problem is that the taxes are taken directly from our paychecks, so we never actually see the money going out. If the American people actually had to cut a check to the government each month for 30-45% of their income, there would be rioting...

No more fairtax opponents on KMC!!

Call your senators. We want our money back!

why do the rich scream bloody murder at the notion of them being taxed the same percentage of income as the middle class? or more to the point, scream bloody murder at ANY taxes? the best solution they can come up with in an economic crisis: cut taxes for the rich hey, it worked in the 80s...no it didnt

Originally posted by PVS
why do the rich scream bloody murder at the notion of them being taxed the same percentage of income as the middle class? or more to the point, scream bloody murder at ANY taxes? the best solution they can come up with in an economic crisis: cut taxes for the rich hey, it worked in the 80s...no it didnt

Actually, I bet the rich would absolutely LOVE to be taxed at the same rate as the middle class. I know I'd prefer a 25% rate to a 40% rate.

Originally posted by docb77
Actually, I bet the rich would absolutely LOVE to be taxed at the same rate as the middle class. I know I'd prefer a 25% rate to a 40% rate.

Fascist monster...

I would also like to get a check back at the end of the year also instead of sending one in.

funny, i had to send a heavy check.

small business. should i blame clinton?

Originally posted by PVS
funny, i had to send a heavy check.

small business. should i blame clinton?

Nah, you should probably blame the post-WWII congress that forgot that the taxes were supposed to be temporary.









And every congress and administration since then...

Originally posted by docb77
Nah, you should probably blame the post-WWII congress that forgot that the taxes were supposed to be temporary.











And every congress and administration since then...

Yes, and also forgot that direct witholding from checks was also supposed to be temporary...

Without direct witholding, the current tax rates would have never flown...

So how did tax day go for everyone this year? Make anyone wish we had a simpler tax system?

yup. how about no taxes at all?

The idea seems alright...better than the current system here at least (though I suppose we would have less money, but that would be a good thing...since we are taxed too high anyways)

I think the problem with taxes is that they are spend on stupid shit...which is why they are so high....