Question(s) for Fair Taxers
- Thread starter What Would Jesus Do?
- Start date
Generally, no. Business expenses aren't subject to the FairTax. Only goods and services purchased at the retail level for individual consumption are taxed.
This is my understanding as well. And only new goods are taxed. Used goods are not. So all the superpacs need to do is to somehow figure out how to buy used airspace and they're doubly covered.
There is Use Tax in most every state that applies to business transactions. There are rules that limit the tax, but most states are doing everything they can to justify taxing anything
Well let's see. Dr. Venkman posted in another thread that his monthly HMO premiums have gone up to $875/month. That means that if the total amount is anything less than 3.36 trillion dollars, we are money ahead. As a point of reference, we currently collect 2.163 trillion (2010 numbers) in federal income taxes, including payroll taxes, estate taxes, corporate taxes etc. So, let's say the tax rate had to be increased by 50% to pay for universal healthcare. The nation as a whole, would save OVER A TRILLION dollars over what they currently pay for their healthcare.
My point is that the money is already being spent. Universal payer would simply make it be spent more efficiently. Yes I know the source is Wikipedia but it has a cool graph. I believe it is reliable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incom...dia/File:Federal_Receipts_by_Source,_2010.jpg
I would assume with a single payer more savings would be made by getting insurance companies out of the loop.
Government woul tell hospitals what they will get for a procedure and that is it.
Providers would still be in competition to get patients to choose them.
Would have a copay based on income. I would also offer a tax deduction for those that didn't visit the doctor very often.
Government woul tell hospitals what they will get for a procedure and that is it.
Providers would still be in competition to get patients to choose them.
Would have a copay based on income. I would also offer a tax deduction for those that didn't visit the doctor very often.
Figuring out how we are going to tax that and who's going to pay would be the biggest problem.
I think the first thing that would be important would be to make it it's own line item on your taxes sort of like social security is.
The implications of this post are inaccurate. The use tax is a compensating tax that applies when sales tax applies but is not collected. It is not a tax directed at increasing the overall consumption tax base for businesses.
This sounds good too, having some financial responsibility be on the person, should help prevent overuse. A $20 copay shouldn't prevent anyone from seeing the doctor but should be enough money that people arn't going there every time they sneeze.
The negotiating power would help reduce costs. Plus everyone having insurance and paying into the system would lower the costs that hospitals and doctors incur from not being able to collect.
I assume the argument for that approach is the familiar "they'll just pass it on to consumers" argument. Which would make sense if everybody was buying the same stuff. But probably not if they aren't.
If you are exempting business purchases, then you would necessarily have to have a higher FT rate to bring in the same revenue target (whatever that happens to be).
They already figured out the rate. It's all there on the website if you have any questions.
www.fairtax.org
www.fairtax.org
No reason for insurance companies to go away. Universal healthcare will only cover what we are willing to have it cover. I imagine it would be like Medicare Part A. Or maybe somewhat better than that.
Medicare Part A is certainly great to have if you don't have anything else, but there's a reason why most elderly people pay out of their pockets for Part B and Part D plus a supplemental policy - the latter 2 being purchased from commercial carriers.
I would explore having them go away. Providers get what the government decides and that is it. I fear if supplemental insurance is offered you will have the "haves" and "have nots". Providers only get what the government owes them and the patient never owes anything besides copay.
I think there are a lot of savings to be had. If a hospital wants a three story glass atrium with a Starbucks inside get donations to pay for it but stop charging $10 for an aspirin
Get rid of insurance profits and. Hospitals that look like Adobe star hotel and I think healthcare can be made more affordable.
Does a hospital really need a marketing dept, public relations, and patient liaisons?
I use to work at a hospital. There is a lot of fat to trim. I am not talking about doctors, nurses, or equipment. Talking about all the bloated supporting departments that always seem to find their way into non-profit institutions.
Maybe I'm not sufficiently liberal but while I have a problem with the world being divided into haves and have-nots, I don't particulary object to a world of have-enoughs and have-mores - as long as the basic level is decent.
While the idea that we can't afford some reasonable level of universal healthcare strikes me as obviously wrong, I suspect it's true that we can't afford solid platinum coverage for all. And, frankly, I don't have any problem with not striving for that extreme.
So . . . having a universal healthcare scheme that lets people get a high standard of ordinary care seems like a good objective to me. As we gain experience and (hopefully) get better at delivering medical services, we can raise the bar. But for now, I'm perfectly comfortable with a basic care level that excludes most elective or cosmetic surgery, doesn't cover multiple liver transplants for alcoholics who keep drinking, and so on. And if people do want more coverage than that, why not let the insurance industry handle it?
BTW, I definitely agree with your comments about excesses.
That's why we put limits of what is paid for various services. Or so I suppose. We don't seem to do a very good job on all of that, but that's still a reasonable approach, I think.
That's a big assumption that might well be wrong. Competition will do a better job lowering price and raising quality than government fiat. In addition the VA is a pretty good form to see how the federal government runs a health care system. Thousands have died waiting for care. Multiply that many times and you have single payer system. The government does some things better than the private sector but not many.
Good question. What agency currently handles fees and such? My guess is we'd still have the IRS but its operations (and maybe its name) would change.
I've been involved in my share of sales and use tax audits. None of them evidenced anything more than the state government attempting to collect what it thought was appropriate. There is nothing special about the use tax in that regard. That's an audit. I didn't always agree with the state's position, but the use tax isn't some attempt at nailing businesses.
True, it's hyperbole. But at least the IRS would be out of your life unless you sold new goods and services to end consumers.
The magic of the fair tax is it greatly diminishes power in Washington DC. There will no longer be a tax code that can be used to punish a reward behavior. No longer a need for lobbyists pushing for industry tax considerations. Pulls a lot of money out of the political process.
The last line is exactly why the Fair Tax will never happen. Politician have campaigns funded because we have a 70,000 page tax code.
The last line is exactly why the Fair Tax will never happen. Politician have campaigns funded because we have a 70,000 page tax code.
The last two posts are pretty idealistic. The IRS would still be in your life to, among other things, ensure that your aren't making black market purchases. Congress would also still be able to enact social policy. Exemptions and preferential rates of tax are always options. Just look at the EU' s issues with the VAT for examples.
Ah, OK. So nothing anyone with a lot of money would buy will be taxed.Good Republican plan.
Well, it runs itself. Tat's the beauty of a fair tax - it doesn't need anyone to run it. Everyone will liine up with a smile and pay their share.
The other thing people fail to think about is the relationship between a fair tax and our international and state tax systems. Pay overseas income taxes? No more credit. Have a state income tax? Now you cannot piggy back off of federal taxable income. A consumption tax is ideal for many reasons, but implementation is killer.
The state income tax thing would have been a bigger bugaboo if the IRS hadn't allowed state sales tax to have the same status as state income tax in recent years. Until recently, residents of states like Florida got jack squat on federal tax deductions for state taxes because we don't have a state income tax. This inequity has been fixed, so there's really no issue with fairtax conversion now.
I don't know enough about the international tax issue to comment on that.
Using the tax code to influence behavior can be a good thing.
We don't need to kill the income tax system to get rid of lobbying and corruption - and there's not really much reason to think that killing the income tax would get rid of lobbying and corruption.
The main reason why we won't get a fair tax is that nobody wants to pay a combined 30-40% sales tax.
The election to deduct sales taxes has sunset, at least for now. That isn't the issue though. The issue is that state income taxes piggy back off of federal taxable income. With no federal income reporting, each state would have to replicate the federal tax code. You would have all the same issues, but with much less efficiency and more inconsistencies between states.
They wouldn't be options with the Fair Tax. The Fair tax would be implemented with a a constitutional amendment prohibiting that.
Latest posts
-
-
-
COMMIT: Iowa Lands 2026 Iowa City West, Three-Star OL Colin Whitters
- Latest: clayborn_94
-