Question(s) for Fair Taxers
- Thread starter What Would Jesus Do?
- Start date
It actually does work that way in Florida. I pay my taxes whenever I buy something, and hardly ever even think about it.
I don't have to send any forms to the state.
I don't have to tell them how much money I made and from where I obtained it.
I don't have to give the state an interest-free loan all year and wait for a refund if I overpaid.
I don't need software or a tax professional to tell me how much I owe.
It's wonderful.
I don't believe this for a second. If there were a way to simply rid us of political lobbying about saving money (which is what this allegedly is), it would have been implemented long ago. Sure, this seems to shift it and stop the "regular guys" from "paying taxes", but clearly everyone still "pays" the taxes.
And what is wrong with punishing/rewarding behavior? Are you pretending that our various federal/state criminal codes don't do exactly that? This is incentivization, and frankly I'm surprised conservatives aren't wanting that right now. They can push things like family/children/school of your choice/etc. through tax breaks. Oh, oh, I get it. They are no longer supportive of family/children/schooling because their definitions of those things have all changed, therefore they no longer want to support them.
Taxes should be an equitable method of sharing the cost of government among the citizenry. It should not be used for social engineering purposes. Period.
Except that you do still tell them how/where you "made your money", unless this will rid us of all other business-regulated agencies as well. Work comp, unemployment, minimum wage, EEOC, etc.
Also, you don't have to give them the interest-free loan, it isn't difficult, for the vast majority, to figure out how much tax they should owe.
But yes, this sounds like it would save me the few hours/year it takes to do taxes...I would just spend much more up front.
Why? You've now posted your thesis, support it. Society = social engineering.
Everybody bitches about loopholes and tax shelters until someone suggests getting rid of a tax credit that they like. Get rid of them all and then it's fair and that dispute can be resolved forever.
I don't want government to have the power to hit me in the wallet for behaviors that are otherwise lawful. Why would you?
Why should I pay less taxes than someone who made the same amount of money because I did things like owning a house, having children and purchasing an energy-efficient dishwasher, while the other guy did not?
That's ridiculous.
Last edited:
There is no income tax in Florida. I send nothing at all to the state which would let them know how I make my money.
I don't personally send any such information to any government agency. Employers do. And there are other sources of income besides wages.
The point of my comment is Congress does not want to eliminate lobbyist money as that is how campaigns are funded. That is why nothing really happens in Washington DC. Rules, massive tax code, partisan divisions, etc. all mean money flows into the city in an effort to influence votes in Congress. Why would the politicians want to change anything?
Agreed. The FairTax doesn't tax labor. It taxes consumption of new goods and services. If you don't want to pay the tax, don't buy new stuff.
The freaking greenies should really be onboard with this. Reuse, Repurpose, Recycle, right?
Well, the FairTax encourages people to do just that.
But I thought that you were against social engineering with the Code? As you note, a tax on consumption serves to provide a disincentive to consume. Removing a tax on labor similarly provides an incentive to sell your labor.
As others have noted, you cannot help but to social engineer once you have government. It is inevitable. To pretend that you can cabin off our tax system from that reality is just naive.
So how do you argue that taxing consumption is "an equitable method of sharing the cost of government?" Tax theory generally relies on a benefits rationale or on an ability-to-pay rationale for distributing the tax burden. Consumption might be a rough proxy for the latter, but it is not as good as income or wealth.
Rich people certainly buy more expensive things and fewer used things. Consumption is a better proxy for wealth than income is, IMO.
As for social engineering, you'd have a point if that was the intent of the law, but it's not. The intent on not taxing the purchase of used stuff is to avoid double taxation.
As for social engineering, you'd have a point if that was the intent of the law, but it's not. The intent on not taxing the purchase of used stuff is to avoid double taxation.
Sure, the wealthy buy more stuff, but they obviously do not consume as much of their wealth/income as the poor. How do we know? Ask yourself who has wealth to distribute at death. The wealthy do not consume as much of their wealth as the poor. They have that luxury.
That is all really a diversion though. The question that you begged is whether and why consumption patterns are a more equitable way of distributing the tax burden than another form of tax. Actually, the question is why a consumption tax, in isolation, is a more equitable way of distributing the tax burden than a system that incorporates many different ways of distributing the tax burden. There is fairly good research to suggest that each tax system is flawed, which is why we should use the different types of tax to compensate for the weaknesses in each. Relying solely on one form of tax exacerbates the problems inherent in that form of tax.
That is all really a diversion though. The question that you begged is whether and why consumption patterns are a more equitable way of distributing the tax burden than another form of tax. Actually, the question is why a consumption tax, in isolation, is a more equitable way of distributing the tax burden than a system that incorporates many different ways of distributing the tax burden. There is fairly good research to suggest that each tax system is flawed, which is why we should use the different types of tax to compensate for the weaknesses in each. Relying solely on one form of tax exacerbates the problems inherent in that form of tax.
I don't think it should be the goal of taxation to make sure everybody dies with nothing.
And there will still be other kinds of taxes at the state and municipal level. The federal government is too big and involved in too many things. Streamlining the tax structure is part of the overall goal to reduce the size and scope of the federal government, returning it to it's intended responsibilities.
And there will still be other kinds of taxes at the state and municipal level. The federal government is too big and involved in too many things. Streamlining the tax structure is part of the overall goal to reduce the size and scope of the federal government, returning it to it's intended responsibilities.
This is significantly different than your prior arguments. If you are relying on a federal consumption tax to limit the scope of the federal government's power, then I don't know what to tell you. You are introducing a significant market disruption with incredible risk and without any real connection to limiting the size of government (other than the false hope of killing the IRS).
Further, as I've mentioned earlier, any reduction of difficulty with complying with the federal income tax is offset by the shifting of that burden to the states. Unless every state were to eliminate the income tax, which they will not, they'd have to impose their own complicated income tax codes without the benefit of piggybacking off of the feds. Add in the impact on interstate commerce and you have a real mess.
I understand why people reflexively support the Fair Tax, I do. I don't understand, however, how they can look at reality and still think it to be viable.
Perhaps the 41 states with an income tax will see the light and join the nine states that don't have an income tax. The only reason so many states did that is because they were following the federal government's lead.
Imagine that we currently did not have the federal income tax, but we were thinking about implementing it. If I told you that it would be so complex that it would require 70,000 pages of regulations, would you look at that and think it to be viable?
One of the greatest problems in this country is people's inability to see when an entire system should be scrapped and started over.
Which the government would still know about. You aren't a hermit in the woods hiding from the government because a fair tax is passed.
They couldn't play games with the tax code anymore. Regulatory issues would still be in play.
If I am a flea market vendor, no one would know how much I make with the FairTax. It wouldn't be reported to anybody.
This is entirely nonsensical, beginning with your simplistic premise. Person A wants Thing A, Person B doesn't want Person A to have Thing A. Removing Thing A from the equation doesn't make that "fair". Some things are beneficial for society. Guess who gets to decide which things are? Society. For a rudimentary example: children. Children are vital to our economy and future. (See: Japan). So we incentivize having children. The "unfair" is for people who don't have children....but they aren't helping society in the same way, therefore apples/oranges.
As others have said, government is all about incentivizing/penalizing conduct in order to establish societal norms. It isn't the tax code that strictly does this. Nor is it a bad thing. Nobody really wants a purely capitalistic, uncontrolled society. Scratch that, very very very few people want that.
Stop pretending to be libertarian. The simple answer to your simple question is: Because we collectively decided those things are good for the collective, and your hoarding of money while hiding in the woods is not. Extrapolate your belief on that. Pass a "fair" tax, and nobody buys anything. Can that be anything other than a complete failure? You are arguing for the fairness for someone, who if they had their way, they would cripple our economy.
First of all, the last thing a capitalist wants is to "cripple" the economy.
Secondly, unless you're willing to go off the grid and live in a mountain shack and eat squirrel and possum, you're going to buy things.
The state sales tax in Florida only really gives me pause if I'm making a really big purchase. Like a car.
Last edited:
Nothing you wrote is accurate or true. It is that simple. The IRS would be eliminated and replaced with agency smaller by an order of magnitude. States would likely follow suit and replace their income taxes and even if they don't they already have their tax codes and compliance systems built so there is no additional burden. It's easier all around.
It's just simple logic. It is a simpler more elegant solution. Those who argue against it for any other reason than they want a big powerful obtrusive government that "soaks" the "evil rich" either hasn't educated themselves on it or isn't very smart.
I like the logic of this. WE WILL DISMANTLE THE IRS and replace it with an agency that does the same thing!
Ok, with all of this "fair" talk, explain how this works as fairness:
Person A buys a car, worth $15,000. He drives it around, 4 wheels on the ground impacting the pavement, causing emissions, etc.
Person B buys a car, worth $150,000. He drives it around, 4 wheels on the ground impacting the pavement, causing emissions, etc.
How does this system improve, or eradicate, the unfairness of our current system which is weighted by income?
Person A buys a car, worth $15,000. He drives it around, 4 wheels on the ground impacting the pavement, causing emissions, etc.
Person B buys a car, worth $150,000. He drives it around, 4 wheels on the ground impacting the pavement, causing emissions, etc.
How does this system improve, or eradicate, the unfairness of our current system which is weighted by income?
This is why we get along so well.
The only things that scares me is when we inject govt money into anything it really seems to up the inflationary cost of said product/service. Strict price controls certainly would need to be put in place, one way of doing that is having a higher up-front deductible for those that can afford it.
Am I misunderstanding the tax? Doesn't he pay $x% on the car? So one person pays drastically more in taxes than another person who is affecting the cost of government equally?
The idea of taxes, as someone else posted, is to "share the cost of government". Roads/emissions/etc. cost money to control/keep up, right? Why is it "more fair" to treat them inequitably through a sales tax than doing so based on their income?
I'm no fan of this tax, but I think the fairness argument goes that both drivers would pay the same percentage. Where the proponents of this tax feel that progressive taxation of income is unfair.
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
COMMIT: Iowa Lands 2026 Iowa City West, Three-Star OL Colin Whitters
- Latest: clayborn_94