Sell what? Your ridiculous fantasies?
Do you set your household budget on what you'd like to spend, or based on how much money you have?
Question(s) for Fair Taxers
- Thread starter What Would Jesus Do?
- Start date
Sell what? Your ridiculous fantasies?
Do you set your household budget on what you'd like to spend, or based on how much money you have?
LOL...so now we're doing it for the convenience?
If I get the dealer down to $10K it's because the dealer KNOWS that the base price is $7700 and he can turn a profit. THAT'S the car I'm buying. I drive it home grinning from ear to ear the day the FairTax becomes law and tell my neighbor that I got that car for $10K and he laughs and points to his exact same car he bought the day before and says, "Only paid $9,500 for it yesterday".
Last edited:
That's based on real analyses of your tax. You don't get revenue neutral at 23%. Period. Anyone who claims otherwise is lying.
Excuse me...misleading.
Doesn't it seem a little odd that you are going to the mattresses to defend hiding the tax?
Sounds like your plan would involve more regulation and enforcement than you may realize.
Same thing happens when they increase income tax rates (like the democrats want to do). Yesterday has no bearing on today.
The fact that you're slashing the number of taxpayers helps with this immediately.
Oh, and the tax form only has two lines:
1. What was your total revenue?
2. Multiply the figure in line 1 by 23 percent. This is your tax.
Imagine if it was sold this way:
"We will eliminate the personal income tax and impose a replacement tax on corporations."
You dems would be jumping up and down to vote for that.
And really, that's what's being proposed.
"We will eliminate the personal income tax and impose a replacement tax on corporations."
You dems would be jumping up and down to vote for that.
And really, that's what's being proposed.
IMO that's just more hiding by calling just the businesses the taxpayers. In reality you're greatly increasing the number of taxpaying citizens. That's the only way you can get the math to work.
That's also why this plan will cost most, more. You are shifting the tax burden to the lower classes and away from the upper. Compared to our current system it is regressive and will retard growth by taking away disposable income from the economy. We don't need to sweat these semantic details. It's a bad plan intrinsically no matter how you define terms and no mater what rate you apply.
If it was really a bad policy, props could argue against it without having to make stuff up about it.
It's actually a tax on retailers, who will also save money due the payroll taxes being abolished (7.65 percent of every dollar paid out in wages) and they COULD pass that savings to the consumer, resulting in lower tax-inclusive prices. I would would venture to guess there will be plenty of market pressure to do so and keep prices down. That helps everybody.
You aren't going to let them deduct business to business sales or sales of used items? Those would be included in revenue. Now you need at least two more lines. . .and it begins.
Remember all this is revenue neutral. So if the rich are saving and the corporations are saving, that means the poor are paying a lot more. That, coupled with losing the ability to shape behavior are the primary reasons I think plans like this are bad for the nation.
You haven't done as bad as the others in opposition in this thread. I'll give you that.
Okay, well the current 1040 has 70-something lines. I think we can do a lot better than that.
The ability to "shape behavior" is WHY we need this tax reform. If I'm doing something wrong, make it illegal, not a tax penalty. If I'm doing something right, give me a medal or the key to the city or something.
What's great about the fairtax is YOU make your own tax credits. Skip buying the new car and get a used one. Instant tax credit!
Actually you just change line 1 to say, "what was your revenue from retail sales to end consumers?"
No additional lines needed now.
Happy?
What you are discounting is the prebate, which pays poors for their tax burden in advance, as well as the hidden taxes that would no longer be part of the price of goods. Since corporate taxes and payroll taxes are no longer around the price of goods will be reduced helping to offset then added cost of the Fair Tax. Those two factors combine to give the poor benefits better than what they have now. The net price of goods will actually go down for them.
Also the poor can buy used goods and avoid some taxes that way.
I don't think you've thought this through. The current system allows for a much less authoritarian approach to behavior modification. Your system is a lot harsher. For under your plan we have to arrest and or shut down people or businesses who don't behave as required where the present system is just a gentle nudge in the right direction. The ability to use the tax code as a system of carrots to fix problems is a huge advantage.
Now you need a schedule showing how the taxpayer moved from total revenue to net revenue. I admire your desire to make this simple, but this is a complex area. We cannot wish it away. One need only look at the difficulties that states and foreign governments have with collection consumption taxes to see that they are not a panacea.
No, politicians think a lot harder about outlawing something vs. "tinkering" with the tax code.
But if the rich and paying less and the rest are paying less, then it isn't revenue neutral. That is the point. To the contrary, if the rich pay more under this system, then there is no way that it passes into law.
Then who are you charging more? The rich pay less, the very poor pay less, the corporations pay less. But again, the revenue has to stay the same. So that means most posters here have to pay more, right? Someone has to make up for all those discounts, who is it? That's always the problem with these plans. They act like they are Oprah giving everyone free stuff, but they just hide the fact that for every give away, someone has to make up for that. It sounds like a Democratic plan, but as cons have taught us, nothing is free.
The states do that sort of thing all the time. In Florida, some items are taxable, some are tax free. Churches can present a certificate to the retailer to avoid sales tax. Purchases designed for resale are tax free. But it's nowhere near as complicated as the federal income tax
Its not what you want it to mean, but that is math. Everyone can't pay less and keep the system revenue neutral.
As long as you're comfortable admitting your plan leads to a police state, I suppose we can agree.
Yes, all the rich people are drinking Two-Buck Chuck wine, wearing clothes from Walmart, driving second-hand cars, etc., etc.
The rich will pay a lot more because there are no loopholes and they'll still want to keep up with the Joneses.
Show me one model that says the rich would pay more under your plan. You're going to look a long time because they all show their tax burden would fall while the tax burden of the lower classes would grow.
You encourage it. You said make things illegal rather than just encourage it with the tax code. You have no idea how many new laws that would involve if we made a corresponding law requiring a behavior for every incentive the current tax code holds. That's why I said you haven't thought this through.
Warren Buffett famously complained that he pays less in taxes than his secretary does.
Do you think Buffett spends less money than his secretary does?
No, they'd give up trying to control my life if they have to actually pass a new law rather have the IRS write new rules.
Models baby, models. Give me models. They can be either the economic type of the shirtless hunk type, but anecdotal ain't going to cut it.
