Would a fair tax plan work?

[Mr.Vicchio]

The real site is www.fairtax.org

And I support it 100%. It is fair, and it would work. It would shift more power then at anytime since the signing of the declaration of independance (rhetorically speaking of course)

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Boo hoo. The Fair tax is the best way that we can be taxed, since we're going to be taxed in one form or another. And I don't want people like you screwing up any chance that we have to get it installed because of your whining. Buck up and take one for the team.

LOL. Since the "Fair tax" isn't in effect now, there's nothing for me to "whine" about, is there? Seems to me that all the whining is coming from people like you. Congress will NEVER vote to raise taxes on the largest voting block by the estimated 23%. Not only are you not going to get a "fair tax"system, the taxes you are paying are going to go up to pay for bush's war. My income taxes are at an all time low, and soon you'll be paying for my Social Security too. So you better get greased up and ready to take a lot more "for the team".

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Boo hoo. The Fair tax is the best way that we can be taxed, since we're going to be taxed in one form or another.

Well, I intend to take poison when I commit suicide. But you may shoot yourself when you do it.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Boo hoo. The Fair tax is the best way that we can be taxed, since we're going to be taxed in one form or another. And I don't want people like you screwing up any chance that we have to get it installed because of your whining. Buck up and take one for the team.

That is just wromg tman.


Perhaps if he knew that some of the people on "his team" were actually on his side.


I think Z's point is the single biggest obstacle in the consideration of the Flat Tax, and until he articulated it, I hadn't heard this issue raised by anybody.


This could be the ice berg that sinks that ship.


After I considered the implications of taxing poeples money that had already been taxed, I instantly reccognized I now know what smells about the Fair Tax.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Captain Chaos No way. They could do it. They just need to find a willing island and use a fair tax system there. What prevents them is political BS.

How would willingness be determined here?

Quote by: Captain Chaos Surely you agree it is better to test something like this rather than just implement it as a whole? Politics may not allow for it - but it would be better.

Of course, the logical conclusion to your argument here is for there to exist multiple competing "governments" in the same area. After all, we would then have the advantages of simultaneous testing and voluntary participation. Then again, since government is by definition a monopoly, multiple institutions that perform the roles that government performs today would mean... drumroll please... there would be no government.

What do you think of this?

- Rob

[Autolykos]

I'd like to ask a question to everyone else participating in this thread.

How do you define "fair"?

- Rob

[Mr.Vicchio]

Quote by: Autolykos I'd like to ask a question to everyone else participating in this thread. How do you define "fair"? - Rob

Everyone is taxed under the same system.... and you pay taxes when you choose too, not because you have a job.

The very heart of the www.fairtax.org plan.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Everyone is taxed under the same system.... and you pay taxes when you choose too, not because you have a job. The very heart of the www.fairtax.org plan.

By that definition, the present income tax is a "fair" tax. Everyone is taxed under the same system (i.e. the same Byzantine tax code) and you pay taxes when you choose to -- that is, when you choose to have a job.

- Rob

[Mr.Vicchio]

No true Auto, the bottom 50% of wage earners ARE NOT TAXED.

And people that have say, large amounts of wealth but no actual income are not taxed (If they have a good accountant).

The current system is far from fair.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Autolykos I'd like to ask a question to everyone else participating in this thread. How do you define "fair"? - Rob

I would define fair as evenly apportioned. No mechanism for anybody to defer their responsibility onto another.


Just putting players in the same system does not garuntee that inequality will not exist.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio No true Auto, the bottom 50% of wage earners ARE NOT TAXED.

Yet that is still part of the current system, is it not?

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio And people that have say, large amounts of wealth but no actual income are not taxed (If they have a good accountant).

Again, that is part of the current system. Everyone (by and large) plays by the same rules, except that the rules are complex to the point of generating different outcomes for people in different situations (such as the ones you presented above).

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio The current system is far from fair.

Perhaps you should rethink how you define "fair".

- Rob

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Milton Bradley I would define fair as evenly apportioned. No mechanism for anybody to defer their responsibility onto another.

Yes, I can agree with this. If there is going to be any form of income tax, I would prefer that it is a flat-rate tax, thereby ensuring equality of apportionment.

Quote by: Milton Bradley Just putting players in the same system does not garuntee that inequality will not exist.

Certainly. Again, I agree.

- Rob

[Mr.Vicchio]

www.fairtax.org

That's how I define fair taxation. A progressive income tax that punishes success with higher taxes I define as inheriently unfair.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio That's how I define fair taxation. A progressive income tax that punishes success with higher taxes I define as inheriently unfair.

I'm intrigued, I admit it. I am totally intrigued by the concept of everybody being forced to play fair.


Perhpas if there were some sort of exemption that would allow ones previous earnings to be excluded from another round of "ask not what yourr government can do for you, but what you can do for your government". Like acknowledging the amount of money that one has at the creation of the law, and having a coupon to exempt that amount of cash in future transactions.


If they can't reach a work around to the double tax dilemma, I think this idea sinks.

[brien]

Quote by: Milton Bradley You are asking me to defend the current system? Come on, I thought you knew better than that.

No, not really, but your comment seemed to lean toward support of the current tax system. A misunderstanding on my part, for sure. I suppose I really don't quite understand what your were writing.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Milton Bradley If they can't reach a work around to the double tax dilemma, I think this idea sinks.

This idea will never fly anyway. As has been pointed out, the bottom half of all wage earners are not taxed. Include elderly and other poor who pay little or no taxes, and you have a huge voter base. For a politician to support a plan that would immediately tax this group at a 23% rate would be political suicide. Since we all know that the number one priority of any politician is to get reelected, this plan will never fly.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Zeebadee This idea will never fly anyway. As has been pointed out, the bottom half of all wage earners are not taxed. Include elderly and other poor who pay little or no taxes, and you have a huge voter base. For a politician to support a plan that would immediately tax this group at a 23% rate would be political suicide. Since we all know that the number one priority of any politician is to get reelected, this plan will never fly.

You could say I forgot one of the true fundamentals there. How silly of me.

[brien]

Quote by: Autolykos I'd like to ask a question to everyone else participating in this thread. How do you define "fair"? - Rob

Fair is a relative term. What is fair for Zee, and even possibly myself who will be in retirement age if I make it in 8 years, may not be fair for the current working class who will have to pony up big time to support the SS system.

But I believe that the SS system will have to change dramatically in the next 8 years at the expense of the wave of current retirees because the SS tax contributions would have to increase to a point where much of the salaries of the workers who will have to support the system will be overtaxed.

The implication of this is that benefits will have to be drastically cut. So Zee, you may be hoping for something that may never arrive to your bank account. At least not in the amounts or form in which you expect. Me, I expect only to use any benefits as a supplemental income, proabably that will have to be used for gasoline or property taxes. I suppose something is better than nothing.

So the question becomes, will the politicians change the tax codes or will they reduce the benefits of those elgible for SS ? Keep in mind entitlemenst are the largest portion of the federal budget. I would postulate that they will do both.

I am not sure I favor taxing income. I am perhaps, more in favor of taxing consumption.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: brien The implication of this is that benefits will have to be drastically cut. So Zee, you may be hoping for something that may never arrive to your bank account. At least not in the amounts or form in which you expect. Me, I expect only to use any benefits as a supplemental income, proabably that will have to be used for gasoline or property taxes. I suppose something is better than nothing.

I agree, Brien. However, for the same reasons I believe a Fair tax system will never be adopted, it's possible that we may never see SS reform. There are just too many voters that would be pissed off by benefit cuts.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Zeebadee Quote by: Milton Bradley If they can't reach a work around to the double tax dilemma, I think this idea sinks. This idea will never fly anyway. As has been pointed out, the bottom half of all wage earners are not taxed. Include elderly and other poor who pay little or no taxes, and you have a huge voter base. For a politician to support a plan that would immediately tax this group at a 23% rate would be political suicide. Since we all know that the number one priority of any politician is to get reelected, this plan will never fly.

I believe the prebate plan works around the regressiveness issue very nicely. If you are poor, you get a prebate every month based on average expenditures for people in that income bracket. Heck, if you are poor but save your money, under the fair tax plan you would receive negative taxation - that is, you would make money from it.

Some kind of prebate or rebate plan could also be used for people with savings. Basically saying... OK, you have 100,000 dollars in a grandfathered savings account. When you take money out of savings it is assumed you will be spending it, and so you get a rebate for 23% of that money.

I dunno - sounds like it would get messy and open to abuse, but it might be workable.