Fair Tax...yea, nea, or other

The Fair Tax idea has been around for a sometime, but there is now a bill within the House and Senate. I am wondering about the thoughts here on this subject so I I made a poll. I have attached the both the House and Senates version below for reference.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/25
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/155/related-bills

Personally I fall into the yes category in it's current state. We all know how bill's start one way, but finish another.

 

IMO, it has some obvious, glaring problems, but is probably the best, most complete starting point, if a consumption based tax system is to be implemented. That having been said, I find it really, really difficult to believe that our entrenched congressmen will be willing to relinquish the POWER that the current tax code gives them. In order to get something like the fairtax through to replace the current tax code, we will also have to be willing to replace our representation in congress (which we should do anyway).

 

The problem with a "progressive" tax system is it becomes a way to implement social enginering. Now we are seeing IRS targeting people who disagree with the global socialist (Gazi) oligarchy. If we had a fair or flat tax system, it would take a spike off the Gazi's club they use to bash freedom with.

 

First and foremost, it is not fair. The end result of the "fair tax" is large tax increases for the poorest of the country and large tax cuts for the richest. I do think that the wealthy should pay higher tax rates than the poorest for many reasons.

 

A flat consumption tax would never fly as it is not punitive to those who have worked hard to succeed.

We as a nation must demonize and punish those who create jobs and have become self sufficient. The entire concept of winners and losers must be put to pasture and we must try and reduce the lifestyle of the productive because it's much easier than encouraging the idle to want to improve themselves.

 

It hurts the poor and I can't do that.

 

Are you serious? The rich are getting richer and richer. Since the Reagan supply side economics, the wealthiest have only become incredibly more wealthy when the other 99% of the country has not. You think saying this is demonizing them? that is a fact. You think saying their share of the wealth has gone up faster than their share of the taxes is demonizing them? That is a fact. You really think paying lower tax rates when you are a billionaire than your secretary is punitive? That is a fact.

Who is saying that there should not be winner or losers, or no wealthy or no reward for hard work... If you have to make up completely delusional fantasies to argue against, then that just shows you have no real argument.

And "job creators" that just shows how far into brainwashed territory you really are... So does your paycheck come from a wealthy individual or a corporation? I can tell you, my father was a CEO of a fortune 500 company. When he dies, many millions of dollars are going to the government. He earned a lot (oh and did it under Clinton tax rates)... And if you cut his taxes to increase his personal income by a few hundred thousand dollars a year, he did not walk into work the next day and say, hey, I am going to build a new plant or launch a new product line, because I am personally wealthier. Corporations create jobs because they see demand, not because their CEO has more money. And truthfully, if he had more money, he would not have bought a 4th house or joined a 6th country club. But I know, Clinton was so punitive to him because of his success.....

I do think that many republicans somehow say what they say because they somehow think that they will someday be so rich as to have a 100' yacht and that somehow taxes may keep them from that, when they start earning several million a year.... They have no idea how the really rich operate. There is a reason the Mitt Romney paid 13% federal income tax rate. Money is in tax free muni bond funds, money is in Generation Skipping Trusts, money is in Grantor Retained Annuity Trusts, etc.

To feel sorry for the rich, to act like the rich are being taxed until there are rich no more, when the very top have the most they have had in 100 years is just delusional.. I mean seriously, you might as well look at something like Andrew Carnegie and claim that his workers were making too much money and he did not have enough.. (my guess is you might even agree with that) Do you really think that the robber barron days of the 1800's is an ideal to be strived for?

Oh, and I am a "job creator" too. I just spent this morning talking to a pool guy to build a pool in the back yard of my 4 story house on a 2 acre lot. This pool is definitely going to help put a few people work for for a bit. If we could only get rid of the estate tax and I could be given a few million more, I might buy another house with a boat on a nearby lake. Think of all those jobs I could create maintaining that second house and boat, damn taxes.

 

I agree that taxes are not, on the whole, going to stop people making money. There will be some impact, but it will not be like the GOP says. That has never been the cause of my opposition to taxation.

It's theft. Pure and simple. I don't support a single cent of it for any purpose, and I feel lethal retaliatory force justified against those who collect it. Of course, it's usually a good idea to give the mugger your wallet.

 

Fair tax is somehow good,
but there are many people who will really suffer.
So, for me, something new is needed

But if theres fair tax issues,
there are also unfair tax issues,
Offshore News reported last month about ‘unfair tax competition’,
http://www.offshorenewsflash.com/20...-changes-could-create-unfair-tax-competition/
this really made me confused.

 

I prefer a flat tax where everyone pays the same tax per dollar earned over the poverty line

both labored and unlabored income treated as income equally, no one should be taxed more because they labored for their income

.

 

interesting

so, it seems that the good fortune of your daddy has trickled down to you and now the pool people

I had no help from anyone and MY EMPLOYEES in my business are here because I risked it all to launch and grow the business.

But, I guess I'm just some rich fat-cat sitting around making boatloads of cash from the labor of my poor, mistreated employees.

Give it a break will you. There is nothing righteous, moral or ethical about punishing those who succeed. Why do you feel that the successful should be punished?

 

So instead you want to punish the poor and make them pay what they really can't afford to lose anyways.

The fair tax would benefit me greatly, but I know nationally it will just hurt the poor further. In a world where the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer you want to take more from the poor and then give to the rich.

 

is there a problem with the "rich getting richer"?

sales tax= buy a $100,000 vehicle and you will pay more tax than on a $20,000 one

Dine at an exclusive restaurant and you'll pay more tax than dining at Subway

Stay at the Ritz and you'll pay more tax than at Motel 6

it sure seems like the policy works when it comes to a flat tax

 

I see you like to ignore the point... there is no punishment. I am not supporting success being punished. I am saying that if you make enough, you should support the country and society that you benefit from. If you are making good money from your successful business and have to pay taxes on that, that is not a punishment. Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. Well you can stop thinking that you should benefit and become wealthy from the freedom, security, roads, regulation and infrastructure provided by the country without paying for it. If a highway expansion helps your business or the federal paid air traffic controllers handle your flights, or the military defends your freedoms, you didn't build that, the government did. And the government needs to be paid for.

I have an idea, if you don't like paying taxes, close your business, live in a van down by the river and your tax bill will be much lower. But if you rather work hard and make more money, then yes, you need to contribute taxes to support your country more...

I mean, I think your argument that you should not have to pay more in taxes than those that make less, makes the same logic as the janitor that cleans your business works the same hours as you, so you should both earn the same money... so how about that, everyone earns the same money and pays the same taxes, is that what you think is right? No, then if you earn more money for your work, then you pay more taxes too.

Somehow republicans seem to think that we should spend hundred and hundreds of billions a year on the military, we should pass medicare part D, we should give farmers subsidies for not growing food, but no one should pay for it. You can argue that spending should be cut, and I would agree with you. But when you benefit from what the country provides, you should help pay for it. That is not punishment, that is reality.

Republicans always seem to long for the good old days of the 50's... oh, before government intrusion... yea, well, also when the top tax rate was 90%. Tax rates are very low by all historical standards. Yet you are still here whining like a baby about paying your fair share and calling it punishment. Just remember, if your business gets really really big and you get incredibly wealthy, your tax rate will go down as your income from "unearned" income is a big portion of your income and is taxed at a lower rate.

BTW, I pay a higher tax rate than Mitt Romney. Both my wife and I do quite well for ourselves on our own. Yes, I have been given money that allows me to live beyond what I could without it. (And let me add, it wasn't my daddy's good fortune, it was hard work that got him what he earned. I am the one with good fortune) But I have run my own business and employed people myself as well. I sold that business and now work for a corporation. We earn enough W2 income to be in a bracket that make us pay higher tax rate than Romney and many other ultra wealthy. I personally don't think billionaires should pay lower tax rates than I do.

But to be clear, I am not saying (nor are liberals) that the wealthy should be punished or taxed until they aren't rich.

Here are more facts... in 1979, the top 1% paid a tax rate of 22.7%. In 2011, they paid a tax rate of 20.3%. Their tax rates have gone down.... yet during this time the 1% have gone from paying 18% of federal taxes to paying 25% of federal taxes.... So why has their tax rate fallen and their share of taxes gone up? Well, because their share of income has gone up even more... And I would be fine with the 1% paying a lower share of the taxes, but it should not be because their tax rates are continued to be cut even lower as they take more and more of the income, it should happen if their share of the income starts to return to more historical levels.

So if I said to you, you can earn $1,000,000 more a year, but you will have to pay $200,000 more in taxes, would you call that "punishment"? Because that is what you are doing. Saying the wealthy getting more and more of the pie and paying a lower tax rate is punishment.

 

We need to stop taxing income, and institute a transactional tax, where every transaction gets taxed, and it has been worked out that it would be less than even 1 percent. So from all on wall street to the man buying a can of beer, it gets a less than one percent transactional tax. This tax would be fixed, and would remain the same unless we wanted to spend a trillion on another war to protect business interests. Then the people would have to either vote the rate up, or not. If not, we do not go to war. Then wars would be paid for with higher transactional taxes, until the war ends. Then it automatically goes back down.

Given what happens to a nation when wealth is concentrated in the hands of few, we would need to institute a wealth tax to pay for the damage that greed does to a nation's working people. Extracted yearly, at some percentage, on net worth.

 

Unless it is beneficial to the rich/elites the tax code will remain the idiocy it has grown to be, and as their sock puppet politicians has made it. The plutocracy will not falter or fail the needs of the true masters.

 

I don't understand that. Money is just a generic IOU. You put something of value into the economy, you get little green IOUs promising the economy will return that value to you.

At the end of the day, the guy with all the little green IOUs sitting in front of him isn't the one who took the most out of the economy — those are markers indicating what he put in. And yet someone always points to him and calls him greedy. Seems like we should be pointing at the guys racking up debt by taking out more than they put in.




​

 

But the poorest are the most likely to support higher tax rates, so wouldn't they be thrilled to pay their fair share, considering they most likely pay nothing at the moment?

List those reasons. Let's see how many are not based in jealousy, at some level.

 

So why are you not giving more of that money you received from your father away to charity? You have the ability to help correct that "trickle down" problem yourself, albeit in a small way. Why don't you?

 

Fair tax fails on a practical level.

Anytime sales taxes get above 8% or so, people start going to extraordinary lengths to avoid them. That's why there a lots of little taxes. It's not worth the bother to avoid each little tax.

However, a sales tax of 20+% would have everyone trying to avoid it, and would drive much of the economy underground. Meaning reduced revenue, meaning tax rates would have to be even higher, vicious cycle.

 

We all receive the freedom, security, roads, regulation and infrastructure provided by the country. If those things were the cause of a person's wealth ... we'd all be wealthy.




​

 

My idea would be to get rid of all federal taxes institute a flat tax on all resident income. There would be no deductions and it would not matter how the income is derived. The payroll tax would be combined in the income tax. The current rate needed to balance the budget would be in the low 20's.

 

No deductions? ... so the guy who spends $200,000 to make $250,000 would pay more taxes than the guy who spends nothing in collecting a $100,000 salary?




​

 

I mean no deductions on income. Obviously take your business revenues and subtract your business expenses, that gets you you're pre-tax income. I meant no child deductions, mortgage deductions, solar panel deductions, etc.

 

... so some deductions. If you own your own business you can deduct costs from your income to get a taxable income (gross profit). Would an employee tradesman be able to deduct rental or purchase of the tools he needs for his job? Required union membership dues; the cost of the uniform or gun a cop must purchase; the cost of photocopying or scientific writing software teachers or writers need...?

And that business. If it expanded to open a new store, would it be able to deduct the rent on the new store and the cost of electricity to it? If it bought that property instead of renting it, could it then deduct the mortgage cost or the cost of installing solar panels for electricity?






​