| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration will allow you to join in the discussion which is amazingly free of personal rancor and trolls! We are currently looking for posters from both the left and the right who have a demonstrated capacity to discuss fervently without letting personalities get in the way. Is that you? We need more staff. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Dump the IRS!; fairtax.org | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Feb 20 2006, 07:38 PM (975 Views) | |
| Post #1 Feb 20 2006, 07:38 PM |
|
|
It's that time of year to hate taxes. I like the Fair Tax proposal. Most people immediately poo poo a large national sales tax. Please read about it before making up your mind. Most of your concerns about such a tax are answered by this plan. Check the FAQ. If you still have questions or concerns. Ask me. I bet I can help you learn to love this idea. The Fair Tax Web Site |
Administrator
  ![]](http://z2.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)
|
 
|
 |
| Post #2 Feb 21 2006, 10:13 AM | Son N Law |
| I've long thought that such a system would be vastly superior to what we have in place now. I'm all for it. I read over the info at the site, and it seems to me that most of the potential problems with such a system have been thought through. I also like Sue Myrick's Flat Tax plan. |
Fool, apparently
|
|
|
|
| Post #3 Feb 21 2006, 10:58 AM |
|
| Is that a flat income tax plan? |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #4 Feb 21 2006, 11:28 AM | Son N Law |
| It is. I wish I could find more info about the particulars online, but I heard her speaking about the virtues of such a system in a radio address, and it really impressed me. Personally, I would prefer a system more like Fair Tax, but if we're going to be stuck with income tax (and I'm afraid we are), I think Sue has some great ideas for reform. |
Fool, apparently
|
|
|
|
| Post #5 Feb 21 2006, 12:39 PM |
|
|
I really don't like income taxes since they penalize what you want people to do: work and produce. A sales tax, particularly like this one that refunds taxes spent on necessities, penalizes something less desirable: conspicuous consumption. An important feature of the Fair Tax is the repeal of the income tax from the Constitution, the original addition of which, IMO, would have been odious to the Founding Fathers. |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #6 Feb 21 2006, 01:49 PM | Son N Law |
|
I totally agree. I just don't think it's actually going to happen, though. I wish it would, but the only way I see us doing away with income tax and adopting sales tax of this nature would be under the leadership of a Libertarian (or at least libertarian) president. And that'll happen sometime after the thirty-second of never, unfortunately. |
Fool, apparently
|
|
|
|
| Post #7 Oct 7 2007, 02:43 PM |
|
|
Why do taxes have to be "fair"? It order to be truly "fair" shouldn't everyone pay the same tax? I looked over some pros and cons for it. I think I fall into the camp of liking the devil I know instead of the devil I don't know. There's just too many unknown about how people will spend their money if a national sales tax was implemented. I think that there's a lot of improvement and simplification that can be done to the current tax code. I think a national sales tax and the elimination of income tax is a too extreme in my opinion. |
Civilian
|
|
|
|
| Post #8 Oct 7 2007, 02:57 PM |
|
|
I've got more questions. These are presented in an attempt to learn more and not to attack: 1. Would the tax apply to the buying and selling of stocks, bonds, and any other transfers of capital? 2. Would the tax apply to internet sales? 3. Would corporations then not be subject to any taxes? 4. What are your thoughts on the following statements, "The guy with 20 billion bucks is using and getting the benefit of the infrastructure, the protective services, the legal system. It's only reasonable that he pays more for it." "Why do you think there has been so much resistence to taxing internet commerce? Because it would hurt the little boom that has been a result of online shopping. Now extrapolate that concept to all business. Taxing commerce hurts the economy." |
Civilian
|
|
|
|
| Post #9 Oct 7 2007, 03:17 PM |
|
|
The site at fairtax.org answers all your questions, but here are a few quick hits: 1. The tax applies to the buying and selling of consumer goods and services. Buying stocks and bonds is investment in a company, not a purchase of goods. So, no. 2. The tax applies to every sale of consumer goods or services. So, yes. 3. Corporations would pay tax on goods they consume, but not on goods purchased to resell or to be used as part of a manufactured item to resell. If a corporation buys a pen to use in the office, yes. If it buys a lug nut to put on a car it sells, no. 4. Are those your statements? Do you agree with them if they are not? If you'd like to know what I think, please express your opinion before inviting others. I like the Fair Tax (although the name is stupid; no tax is fair, nor should that be a design feature). One of the main benefits is that, unlike the income tax, the fair tax will equally raise prices on goods sold here, whether made overseas or made here. Income taxes raise only the cost of goods made here, making U.S. products less attractive under the income tax than under the Fair Tax. |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #10 Oct 7 2007, 03:31 PM |
|
|
Fair Tax or National Sales Tax (as I've heard it called for many years), would be that we all pay the same based on our spending habits. If Mr. Millionaire buys a bag of potato chips, he pays X% National Sales Tax, same as if Mr. Poverty buys the same bag of potato chips. To me this has always made sense. A person gets taxed based on his spending, not on his earnings. Because as we all know, the more you make the more you get taxed unless you get into the super high income bracket and have write offs to off set that super high income. Meaning, if you're making a million a year, you have more to give to charities to get the deduction that reduces you tax liability. |
Civil Servant
|
|
|
|
| Post #11 Oct 7 2007, 03:36 PM |
|
|
Actually, under the Fair Tax, everyone received a rebate on an amount of money spent that the designers consider spending on essentials. Mr. Millionaire would pay the same tax on each item as Mr. Poverty. However, Mr. Millionaire would probably pay much more tax than he receives in rebates. Mr. Poverty can, if he spends wisely, get more in rebates than he spends. The rebates make this tax progressive (one reason why the Fair Tax is decidedly not fair, as it shouldn't be). |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #12 Oct 8 2007, 05:44 AM |
|
|
I've done some more research because I was actually a little interested at first. Upon concluding my research, I give the Fair Tax a big fat NO This article does a good job pointing out some of the problems with such a program. http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/06/pf/taxes/c...mptiontax_0510/ |
Civilian
|
|
|
|
| Post #13 Oct 8 2007, 06:56 PM |
|
What a horrible article. The author spends the first half of the article characterizing the proponents of the plan (using unkind words and images), before the first substantive comment on the tax plan:
Of course, the next paragraph admits that the plan is not a true consumption tax and that the tax is completely rebated to the poor (sometimes more than was collected). They fail to mention that ALL taxpayers will take home more money, as zero taxes will be withheld. Even the regressive social security payroll tax would be eliminated. So, poor families come out ahead under the Fair Tax. Way ahead.
Unsubstantiated malarky. Sales taxes are the hardest taxes to cheat on, especially when everything is taxable. Cheating under current sales tax systems is nearly nil--mainly due to simplicity. It is the complexity of the current income tax that makes it so subject to fraud. The article goes on to bemoan the tax on milk. The point of the system is simplicity. Everything gets taxed. Simplicity is what makes cheating so hard. But, wait, isn't it nasty to tax milk? Not really. If we didn't tax milk, the tax on everything else would have to be higher. And, remember, everyone gets a rebate on the amount of taxes paid on necessities, specifically so that such necessities are, for all intents and purposes, untaxed. But, when logic fails, how about some good, old-fashioned denial? Like this:
That is just plain untrue. Every time we cut taxes, revenue goes up. Why? When you reduce the burden government places on the economy, it thrives, creating more wealth, from which a smaller percentage is needed to provide more revenue! A lot of what we pay for goods and services (including milk) is employers recovering hidden payroll taxes. If they don't have to pay these taxes, they will have the option of lowering prices or increasing profits. Competition should motivate the former. Prices should come down, not necessarily to the point of completely off-setting the increase in prices due to the sales tax, but then, everyone is going to be making more money with the elimination of income and payrolls taxes and with the payment of rebates. But, Shaviro is a tax attorney. If the intrusive IRS goes away, so does his raison d'etre. He would be predisposed to hate the Fair Tax, for his personal reasons, so what he claims is automatically suspect. The article goes on to create the totally false impression that producers won't save any money on taxes unless they reduce the pay of workers by the amount they are taxed. Absolutely, unequivocally false. What those who oppose the Fair Tax are doing is ignoring a dirty little payroll tax secret. Employers pay taxes on your earnings that never even show up on your pay stub, since they are considered as having been paid by the employer. These taxes are never reported to you as part of your salary. They are additional costs to the employer, over and above your salary, that are still costs to the employer to have you as an employee--and those hidden payroll taxes go away. The cost to the employer to hire you goes down. And, you still get your whole check, without taxes being taken out. The tail-end of the article goes into some right v. left stuff, with language that clearly identifies the author as not liking the right. A more reasoned, less political article would have better served as a counter-point to the Fair Tax site. Folks, read the whole site. Every reservation I had about the idea was fully addressed there. I can't imagine any reservations that aren't addressed. Anyway, if one wants to rebut the proposal, may I suggest a point-by-point addressing of the proposal, rather than the posting of a hit piece by someone with an obvious agenda against those who support the idea? |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #14 Jan 25 2008, 08:08 PM | hamsters |
|
First of all as a business owner in the state of Washington, I do pay for any internet or inter-state purchases I make via our USE TAX. That is of course if you are an honest person doing business. If I purchase something and am not charged sales tax (like an internet purchase, or some of our out of state suppliers do not charge us sales tax) it is up to me to keep track of all those purchases and pay to the State of Washington my USE TAX for those items. There are some exclusions--like I don't have to pay on things that are part of the work product I produce. Maybe people in general do not pay for internet purchases, but I wanted to make it very clear that some of us pay what we are required to pay. That is part of what makes my State successful (with a surplus) and I don't have a State Income Tax to pay. (There are other things about the state of WA I don't like so let's not get into them here). Second, I always have disliked the fact that people with loads of money and really savy accountants can figure out how to have lots of stuff and not pay taxes. Example: my brother-in-law leases a huge 'truck' like SUV (Ford Expedition) every 2-or so years. Because there is an exemption for people who use their trucks for work (it has to be a certain size truck--mostly this is an exemption created for farmers and the like, not plumbers who like to ski!) he deducts the monthly lease expense but he also gets a certain allowance back in a tax deduction. I actually read this regulation a couple of years ago and was apalled because as you can see, if you know the rules, you can 'bend' it to fit you. Of course bro-in-law's has a fa-in-law who is a big-wig accountant so they deduct all sorts of stuff the average person would never even think of deducting. I guess if he ever gets audited he has a free accountant to back him up. This is de-regure for this type of socio-economic level person. That is why any type of fair tax or National Sales Tax will never be allowed by these folks--it won't be fair to them. Oh, and by the way, you will all get a laugh at the bro-in-law this year decided to go green and take a 3-year lease! That is what he actually said. |
Newbie
|
|
|
|
| Post #15 Mar 23 2008, 06:34 PM |
|
| With tax season upon us and some new members who have not had a chance to study this site, this thread needs a bump. |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #16 Mar 24 2008, 05:39 AM |
|
| I read the earlier posts and I have to agree with Bad Rabbit. My question to those who support the "Fair" Tax, what other countries are currently using this tax system? |
Civilian
|
|
|
|
| Post #17 Mar 24 2008, 07:14 AM |
|
|
What other countries use any extant or proposed tax system? None and Many. None, if you are looking for an exact match. Many, if you are looking for a system with similarities. Frankly, it's a silly question. Would you like to address the features of the proposal, or just dismiss it with sweeping, meaningless, and silly questions? Folks, read the site. It's amazing. |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #18 Mar 24 2008, 07:18 AM |
|
|
Please provide an example of a country that most closely resembles the system you are promoting. BTW - I visited the Fair Tax site and I also visited other sites and researched what they had to say. |
Civilian
|
|
|
|
| Post #19 Mar 24 2008, 07:24 AM |
|
|
Would you care to address the specifics of the proposal or again ask a sweeping, meaningless, and silly question? I am not going along with any deflection. Folks, if there is not going to be a discussion of the details of the proposal here, visit the site. Or, you can read the book by Neal Boortz. It's in bookstores now. |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #20 Mar 24 2008, 11:14 AM |
|
| My point is that if the "Fair" Tax is such a great system, then why aren't there any countries that use it? It isn't being used for a reason. Because it isn't fair and because it doesn't work. |
Civilian
|
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General, in the News · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
4:16 PM May 20