This article explains it all so much better than I can:

 

<a href="http://www.examiner.com/x-11887-Milwaukee-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m9d2-Many-people-can-benefit-from-a-FairTax">Many people can benefit from a FairTax</a>

 

 

Also see:

 

<a href="http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer">What is the FairTax?</a>

 

This article explains it all so much better than I can:

 

<a href="http://www.examiner.com/x-11887-Milwaukee-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m9d2-Many-people-can-benefit-from-a-FairTax">Many people can benefit from a FairTax</a>

 

 

Also see:

 

<a href="http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer">What is the FairTax?</a>

 

 

This is more of a pet peeve of mine that argument for or against any kind of tax change. Articles for tax change always iclude the percent change from todays dollars but never include that really doesn't mean much. The market is effecient at resetting its self. Overall purchasing power (as awarded in the form of an employee's worth in salary) is pretty much set, the amount of dollars may change due to the tax and cost of living (which is now directly related to housing prices) climate in a particular region. My example is that salaries in Texas for roughly the same position as in Ohio, are less due to the lack of a state income tax. Speaking at a Macro level, Yes taxes are lower but so are salaries, so it really is a zero sum game.

This article explains it all so much better than I can:

 

<a href="http://www.examiner.com/x-11887-Milwaukee-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m9d2-Many-people-can-benefit-from-a-FairTax">Many people can benefit from a FairTax</a>

Also see:

 

<a href="http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer">What is the FairTax?</a>

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is more of a pet peeve of mine that argument for or against any kind of tax change. Articles for tax change always iclude the percent change from todays dollars but never include that really doesn't mean much. The market is effecient at resetting its self. Overall purchasing power (as awarded in the form of an employee's worth in salary) is pretty much set, the amount of dollars may change due to the tax and cost of living (which is now directly related to housing prices) climate in a particular region. My example is that salaries in Texas for roughly the same position as in Ohio, are less due to the lack of a state income tax. Speaking at a Macro level, Yes taxes are lower but so are salaries, so it really is a zero sum game.

 

 

 

I'm sorry I don't want to be mad at anyone but

I can't help but feel you didn't read either the article or the information page.

I could be wrong.

I just get the feeling you either don't agree that it's a good idea or you somehow missed the point entirely.

Again- I don't mean to start an argument but it bothers me when people find reasons that this is either not a good idea or that it won't work.

It sure sounds a lot better than what we have now.

 

Well I don't know why my response is showing up in quote(s) but anyway.....

Tried to fix it but it's not working. :(

 

fixed - xumelanie

 

Holy God, man.  This "fair tax" plan is ludicrous.  There is literally no way that it could be implemented, much less come remotely close to being the beneficial tax plan that it claims to be.  What a complete disaster.  I thought about breaking it down, point by point, but I don't have the time and to be completely honest, I wouldn't even know where to begin.

I read most of it and I am not really for it because it is hugely regressive for everything above the poverty line. I wasn't trying to start a fight either but I am really a water will find it's level kind of guy. Most government spending is spent because that money needs spent, people need and expect a certain level of services. If you lower the Fedral tax burden on everyone, the local and state will make up the shortfall in their local and state taxes. You can't get something for nothing. I saw nothing in the literature saying that will be a tax shift from this. I know that I am mixing arguments but a better tax reform would be closing loopholes and simplifying the current code.

 

Listen the site is well presented and it makes a good argument but i just don't agree.

A national sales tax seems like it would be as problematic as the current system. 

 

Look no further than the Cleveland RTA to see problems from reliance on a sales tax for revenue.  Would the sales tax raise enough to cover our $2B a month war expenditures plus something left over to fill potholes?  Completely unknown.  Income tax revenue is down now too, and isn't covering our expenditures.

 

Who is going to collect and enforce the sales tax?  Businesses would still have to track sales and file returns.  Is this an incentive for more black-market (un-reported) sales?  We'd have to come up with a policing mechanism.

 

Those wealthy enough to live off their stock market investments would surely win big-time if they only pay tax when they buy their stocks. 

 

How would we support Social Security?  Remember, SS doesn't just pay out to retirees, it supports the disabled and children in need as well.

 

I also would expect that the system would end up incorporating some elements of the European-style Value-Added Tax on services to generate enough revenue. 

 

And when do you apply the tax?  To the seller of raw materials, then to the component manufacturer, then to the product manufacturer/assembler, then to the distributor, then to the retailer?  Prices would have to go up.  And it would encourage vertical integration.  Does that lead to more businesses becoming "too big to fail?"

 

The income tax started out fairly simple, but over time politics and politicians have added credits and deductions and moved rates up and down and now it's a spaghetti of rules and regulations.  Why would the same thing not happen to a sales tax? 

 

 

Whether it would work well or not is very difficult to tell.  So making the switch would be very risky.  We could simplify our current income tax system by eliminating all deductions and credits.  One rate or graded series of rates, applied to all forms of income, no exceptions.  A lot less paperwork.  But in view of the history with the income tax, I won't hold my breath that it will get simpler no matter what we try. 

 

 

*Sighs & bangs head on desk* :(

It was a noble effort.  But that plan is whacky.

Making any tax system less progressive increases the GINI. History has shown that an increasing GINI destabilizes nations.

 

As you can see, wealth has been consolidating in the USA since Reagan, and as of 2006 had reached an all-time high.

 

It was a noble effort. But that plan is whacky.

 

Well I guess you are entitled to your opinion. I happen to think it's a Great Idea but sad-to-say there are too many people with closed minds and people who don't or won't bother to try to understand it.

 

*sighs again and bangs head on desk*

Sorry but graphs like these just confuse the hell out of me.

Making any tax system less progressive increases the GINI. History has shown that an increasing GINI destabilizes nations.

 

As you can see, wealth has been consolidating in the USA since Reagan, and as of 2006 had reached an all-time high.

 

 

A couple interesting things about this chart.

 

1."Communist" China has a greater income inequality that the United States.

2. France's redistributive policies over the past 40-50 years have created greater income equality in that country.

3. Why is Bulgaria on this chart? Seems like a strange addition

It was a noble effort. But that plan is whacky.

 

Well I guess you are entitled to your opinion. I happen to think it's a Great Idea but sad-to-say there are too many people with closed minds and people who don't or won't bother to try to understand it.

 

*sighs again and bangs head on desk*

 

The problem with a national sales tax is that there will be widespread evasion [i would imagine people would be placing used cars in trusts to avoid a 'sale' or other really strange mechanism to transfer property to avoid the taxes; if there is a loophole a tax attorney will find it--there will be loopholes]. 

 

A Value Added Tax is a similar concept that avoids the lump sum mark up at the end- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_added_tax

I give up!

 

Obviously people (not everyone mind you) just don't get it.

I guess they prefer to have money taken from their paychecks every week. I guess they prefer having to deal with all those forms, etc. every April and worry if they've calculated it all right, etc.

 

Whatever. May as well tell it to the walls.

Shouldn't this be in the political forum?

I give up!

 

Obviously people (not everyone mind you) just don't get it.

I guess they prefer to have money taken from their paychecks every week. I guess they prefer having to deal with all those forms, etc. every April and worry if they've calculated it all right, etc.

 

Whatever. May as well tell it to the walls.

 

I get it.  I think it's a bad idea.

"I give up!

 

Obviously people (not everyone mind you) just don't get it.

I guess they prefer to have money taken from their paychecks every week. I guess they prefer having to deal with all those forms, etc. every April and worry if they've calculated it all right, etc.

 

Whatever. May as well tell it to the walls."

 

 

It seems as though people on this thread (like myself) have read the information on the websites and just don't agree that such a proposal would be an improvement.  If you want uneducated head bobbing to your idea then post this on your local newspaper forums.  If you want an educated discussion simply find facts to refute the other forumers' posts.  If you cannot find anything, then concede the point that the "fair tax" may not be all it's cracked up to be.

Inre the GINI:

 

(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient )

 

The Gini coefficient is point-estimate of equality at a certain time, hence it ignores life-span changes in income. Typically, increases in the proportion of young or old members of a society will drive apparent changes in equality. Because of this, factors such as age distribution within a population and mobility within income classes can create the appearance of differential equality when none exist taking into account epidemiological effects. Thus a given economy may have a higher Gini coefficient at any one point in time compared to another, while the Gini coefficient calculated over individuals' lifetime income is actually lower than the apparently more equal (at a given point in time) economy's.[13] Essentially, what matters is not just inequality in any particular year, but the composition of the distribution over time.

 

It appears that a younger population will give a higher GINI, Was the US's measured just with the income generating portion of the population (18-60)?. The fact that most of western Europe's population growth is flat or deflating will lower their GINI, by definition.

There is nothing wrong with debate, but if your only replies are, "I give you! You guys are all ignorant..." then how can you craft something constructive as a reply? Fair Tax discussion only or it gets deleted, thank you. :)

I think it's an interesting idea, but I don't think it would work.

I guess they prefer to have money taken from their paychecks every week.

I do prefer it that way. If the money comes out of my paycheck before I see it, it upsets me less to pay taxes because I never saw the money to begin with.

I guess they prefer having to deal with all those forms, etc. every April and worry if they've calculated it all right, etc.

Again, you're right I do prefer dealing with all those forms to having to pay taxes at a cash register. Is it really that hard to use turbo tax? Not so much for myself but Americans in general have a tendency to buy too much on credit. I'd rather not see people paying their federal taxes by credit card and end up owing 20-30% interest on their tax bill.

I give up!

 

Obviously people (not everyone mind you) just don't get it.

I guess they prefer to have money taken from their paychecks every week. I guess they prefer having to deal with all those forms, etc. every April and worry if they've calculated it all right, etc.

 

Whatever. May as well tell it to the walls.

 

I don't like having taxes withheld from my paycheck every week, but do I prefer it over having to pay 30% more on just about everything?  Definitely, and so should anyone outside the top two current income tax brackets.  The tax would be absurdly regressive, amounting to a tremendous increase on the tax burden of anyone below the median income ($40,000 or so), a moderate increase in the tax burden of the middle class, and an enormous windfall for CEOs, investment bankers, and other high earners.

 

The tax code has moved away from real progressivity far enough in the past 30 years.

I don't like having taxes withheld from my paycheck every week, but do I prefer it over having to pay 30% more on just about everything?  Definitely, and so should anyone outside the top two current income tax brackets.  The tax would be absurdly regressive, amounting to a tremendous increase on the tax burden of anyone below the median income ($40,000 or so), a moderate increase in the tax burden of the middle class, and an enormous windfall for CEOs, investment bankers, and other high earners.

 

The tax code has moved away from real progressivity far enough in the past 30 years.

 

 

That's just it. You wouldn't be paying an additional 30 percent. The taxes are already embedded.

Geez- I'm not very good at explaining it.

Did you also read about the "pre-bate?" 

Again about all I can do is to ask you to check out the Web site and read what it's all about.

There are also several books you can read on it as well (however not all of them are favorable about the FairTax).

 

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

Hopefully this will help get the point across:

 

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main

 

You know there were many who said that the Wright Brother's were wasting their time.

I get the point just fine. I think it's a stupid idea, just like anything else that comes out of Neal Boortz's deranged mind.

 

IIRC, the current tax code needs to be vastly reformed and simplified. But a truly progressive income tax is the most equitable and easiest to enforce, rather than a regressive sales tax that would instantly force low-income people to spend 30% more for basic goods and supplies.

I appreciate that there are benefits to this system.  However, I have a few concerns.

 

Will this will put an additional bureaucratic burden on the working poor who pay no taxes now, but under this plan will have to manage their way through a "prebate" system?  Could you please explain how (if possible) this system will be less or at least equally burdensome to low income earners?

 

Also, would the fair tax have basic necessity exemptions (like food, water, electricity, etc...)?  If so what would those be?  Would this skew the tax rates on other items higher?  Wouldn't the government ultimately do the same kind of tinkering with the tax rates on different classes of items to shape behavior just like they do with income taxes making it equally painful (tax credit on mortgage income, capital gains, first home buyer, green credits, etc...)?  For example, I know in Ohio food taken out is not taxed with the bizarre exception of carbonated drinks.

 

Along these lines, what flexibility would there be in the fair tax?  It appears to need to be pretty rigid to decrease administration cost, decrease personal complexity (at least for those who do not have to deal with the prebate) and increase "fairness" in tax collecting.  However, if the system needs to respond to any issues that arise, what could be changed and still keep it fair?  For example, if the system does not return the projected results could the flat rate be changed, or tweaked for different classes of products?