ADVERTISEMENT

Question(s) for Fair Taxers

Nobody said everyone would pay less.

Then you need to identify whose taxes are going up. If it isn't the poor, it is the middle class or rich. Do you think this would be a serious policy proposal with any chance of passing Congress with Republican support if either of those were true?
 
  • Like
Reactions: naturalmwa
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.
Then all the problems tax incentives solve come to the forefront. Face it, this is a lot more complex than you give it credit. You either accept the carrots the current system offers to address problems or you accept a police state forcing solutions or you accept a whole host of new problems with no solution. I know which option sounds the best to me.
 
Then you need to identify whose taxes are going up. If it isn't the poor, it is the middle class or rich. Do you think this would be a serious policy proposal with any chance of passing Congress with Republican support if either of those were true?
sticker,375x360.u2.png
 
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.

You've done that a couple of times in this thread. The IRS doesn't write the tax code. Congress does. Further, to the extent that the IRS is "writing new rules" recently, they have been in favor of taxpayers. The IRS has made administrative decisions to not go after tax on a wide range of benefits that are taxable under Congress' Code.
 
Then you need to identify whose taxes are going up. If it isn't the poor, it is the middle class or rich. Do you think this would be a serious policy proposal with any chance of passing Congress with Republican support if either of those were true?
The middle and upper classes pay slightly more as a whole. However families and individuals have control over their own tax burden through their spending habits. Those who buy new cars and houses and expensive items will pay more. Those who buy used and live frugally will pay less.
 
You've done that a couple of times in this thread. The IRS doesn't write the tax code. Congress does. Further, to the extent that the IRS is "writing new rules" recently, they have been in favor of taxpayers. The IRS has made administrative decisions to not go after tax on a wide range of benefits that are taxable under Congress' Code.

Google "rulemaking agencies" and get back to me.

As for the IRS being friendlier to taxpayers...

Ha.
 
Last edited:
10 Reasons Why Democrats Strongly Support The FairTax

REASON 1: The FairTax meets the entire Democratic tax agenda, starting with progressivity. The FairTax is far more progressive than the current income tax system. Under the FairTax, low-income households experience five times the benefit increase as compared to high-income households. And a switch to the FairTax causes real wages to rise. Source: Jokisch, Sabine and Laurence J. Kotlikoff, “Simulating the Dynamic Macroeconomic and Microeconomic Effects of the FairTax,” NBER Working Paper No. 11858, September, 2006 and Kotlikoff, Laurence J. and David Rapson, “Comparing Average and Marginal Tax Rates under the FairTax and the Current System of Federal Taxation,” NBER Working Paper No. 12533, Revised October 2006.

REASON 2: The FairTax eliminates the highly regressive tax on wages of the working poor and middle class. The FairTax removes the single most regressive element (the payroll tax) for wage earners. Payroll taxes are currently imposed on the first $118,500 of earnings but drop steeply to only a few percent above that amount. The FairTax repeals this unfair tax and allows wage earners to keep their entire paycheck. According to Robert Reich, former U.S. Secretary of Labor, “Everyone hates taxes, but the payroll tax has got to be the worst. Four out of five American workers pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes. The payroll tax is also regressive as hell - - poorer workers pay proportionately more than richer ones.” Source: Reich, Robert B., “Whose Tax Cuts?” The American Prospect, Volume 13, Issue No. 22, December 16, 2002.

REASON 3: The FairTax is the only plan that completely untaxes the poor. Even a person with a zero percent income tax rate today must pay payroll taxes on the first dollar they earn and also pay federal taxes hidden in the prices of everything they buy. The FairTax repeals these hidden taxes, eliminates the payroll tax, and holds all taxpayers harmless against any taxes on essentials such as food, clothing, and shelter. Source: “The Prebate Explained,” Americans For Fair Taxation White Paper, 2015.

REASON 4: The FairTax stops the export of jobs. Our income tax favors imports over U.S. production by exempting imports from U.S. tax, and we penalize U.S. exports by allowing foreign nations to impose taxes when our goods enter their shores. This adds up to an average 17 percent price advantage over U.S. produced goods, which greatly depresses U.S. exports and costs us jobs. The FairTax stops this abuse by taxing all goods consumed in the U.S. alike and untaxing exports. Source: “Hausman Study Shows Distortions in International Trading System Hurting U.S. Manufacturers: An Economic Analysis of WTO Rules on Border Adjustability of Taxes,” May 2006.

REASON 5: The FairTax un-taxes education. The FairTax rewards education and upward mobility in the simplest and most powerful way; by eliminating tuition from all federal taxation. This allows individuals to apply their whole paycheck to tuition before any taxes are taken out. Source: “Why the FairTax is good for young and low-income families,” Americans For Fair Taxation White Paper.

REASON 6: The FairTax is the only plan that targets and taxes existing wealth, not the fruits of labor. The FairTax will tax every dollar of accumulated wealth in the most efficient way possible – when it is spent. Tax shelters, loopholes, or other gimmicks to shield large wealth from taxation will be a thing of the past. Source: Kotlikoff, Laurence J., “The Case for the FairTax,” The Wall Street Journal, March 7, 2005, page A18.

REASON 7: The FairTax boosts the real growth and prosperity of the U.S. Independent research studies confirm the powerful economic effects. Beacon Hill Institute predicts that real GDP would be 10.3 percent higher in just four years under the FairTax. Laurence Kotlikoff, Ph.D., predicts the capital stock to be 43.7 percent higher by 2030, leading to real wages that would be 11.5 percent higher in 2030 than otherwise would be the case if the current tax system remained in place. Source: Tuerck, David, et al., “The Economic Effects of the FairTax: Results from the Beacon Hill Institute CGE Model,” The Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University, February 2007 and Jokisch and Kotlikoff, “Simulating the Dynamic Macroeconomic and Microeconomic Effects of the FairTax,” September 2006.

REASON 8: The FairTax is revenue neutral. The FairTax, at a 23 percent tax rate, raises the same amount of money for the federal government as today’s income tax system. This means that steep budget cuts are not required to pass meaningful tax reform. Source: Bachman, Paul, Jonathan Haughton, Laurence J. Kotlikoff, Alfonso Sanchez-Penalver, and David G. Tuerck, “Taxing Sales Under the FairTax: What Rate Works?” Beacon Hill Institute, published in Tax Notes, updated rate calculation, 2010.

REASON 9: The FairTax promotes the American Dream. The FairTax makes home ownership more affordable because used homes are totally untaxed, and three out of four homebuyers buy used homes. For new and used homes, the FairTax does not tax the earnings used to pay mortgages, interest rates will be far lower under the FairTax, and a homebuyer can save for a down payment faster than under current law. Source: “Promoting home ownership: How the FairTax’s benefits for homeowners exceed the mortgage interest deduction,” Americans For Fair Taxation White Paper.

REASON 10: The FairTax is not a political slogan. FairTax.org is nonpartisan and single issue. Our broken tax system hurts every American, and it will take leaders from all parts of the political spectrum to fix it.

http://fairtax-psyclone.netdna-ssl.com/media/attachments/549996302017a86464000301.pdf?1419351600

Links to references in the link.
 
Google "rulemaking" agencies and get back to me.

As for the IRS being friendlier to taxpayers.

Ha.

Well, I'm pretty confident that I understand agency rulemaking. :rolleyes: It doesn't change the fact that the Code is Congress' Code. Heck the IRS' authority to interpret the law just got a Supreme Court smackdown in King v. Burwell.
 
10 Reasons Why Democrats Strongly Support The FairTax

That list is interesting. It contains at least two tax preferences (which were supposed to go away with this tax). Tuition payments are excluded, providing a tax preference for education consumption. Also, home mortgage interest is excluded (up to the "basic interest rate"). There is another tax preference for a certain type of consumption. (I can buy the used-item exception because, theoretically, the first users overpays for her consumption. It does however, introduce another huge market distortion.)
 
Then you need to identify whose taxes are going up. If it isn't the poor, it is the middle class or rich. Do you think this would be a serious policy proposal with any chance of passing Congress with Republican support if either of those were true?

According to David Burton, chief economist of the Americans for Fair Taxation, it's “probably those earning between $40[thousand] and $100,000”. He agrees that those making more than $200,000 would see their share of the tax burden drop.
 
According to David Burton, chief economist of the Americans for Fair Taxation, it's “probably those earning between $40[thousand] and $100,000”. He agrees that those making more than $200,000 would see their share of the tax burden drop.
So once again the cons want to stick it to the middle class.
 
While this differs somewhat to what i thought I knew about these sorts of plans, the graphic on page 4 indicates that everyone except the bottom 20% would pay more under your system. Are you OK with that?
Like I said previously. Those groups pay more as a whole, but individuals within those groups can pay less depending on their spending habits.
 
While this differs somewhat to what i thought I knew about these sorts of plans, the graphic on page 4 indicates that everyone except the bottom 20% would pay more under your system. Are you OK with that?

Yes, because I spend less on new stuff than other people in my income bracket.
 
Like I said previously. Those groups pay more as a whole, but individuals within those groups can pay less depending on their spending habits.
I suspect "you can lower your taxes if you shop at Goodwill" will prove an ineffective selling point. But at lest we are now clear that nearly everyone's taxes go up under this type of plan.
 
I suspect "you can lower your taxes if you shop at Goodwill" will prove an ineffective selling point. But at lest we are now clear that nearly everyone's taxes go up under this type of plan.
Buying used cars and houses and/or not spending extravagant amounts of money is hardly shopping at Goodwill.

You have uncovered anything or discovered a gotcha.
 
I suspect "you can lower your taxes if you shop at Goodwill" will prove an ineffective selling point. But at lest we are now clear that nearly everyone's taxes go up under this type of plan.

Except for the bottom 20 percent according to your own analysis. Why do you hate poor people?
 
And still with the personal attacks rather than a refutation of the facts. Trad has already admitted I was right all along. Feel free to do the same.
You haven't given any facts. You simply have shown yourself to not be worth responding to with logic, so I'm not gonna waste my time on you. Sorry, but you simply aren't worth that much of my time. This is not you winning. It's you being written off.
 
I've been intrigued by this idea that the IRS would only audit businesses and I think that it is clear that it wouldn't be true. Off the top of my head, here are some issues that the IRS would have to deal with on an individual level.
  • Confirming family size to set the prebate.
  • Determining whether a non-natural born child is a dependent of a family claiming them to increase their prebate.
  • Determining whether the rich guy who claimed that his car was for his business (and thus getting a tax exemption) was lying.
  • Determining whether a taxpayer receiving a package from overseas should have declared an amount of tax due.
  • Determining who is going around and offering tax-free services under the table.
  • Determining whether to go after the paper boy or baby sitter for failing to charge Fair Tax and undercutting professionals in those markets.
  • Determining how to charge Fair Tax on barter exchanges.

On a related point, how do we treat overseas consumption? In theory we can catch imported goods and have a customs charge, but what about the rich who simply decide to consume overseas or those who live near Canada and can get their hair cut or eat there? That is a huge tax shift in favor of those who can do so. The middle class family visiting Florida pays Fair Tax on their vacation. The wealthy family traveling to Paris does not.
 
I've been intrigued by this idea that the IRS would only audit businesses and I think that it is clear that it wouldn't be true. Off the top of my head, here are some issues that the IRS would have to deal with on an individual level.
  • Confirming family size to set the prebate.
  • Determining whether a non-natural born child is a dependent of a family claiming them to increase their prebate.
  • Determining whether the rich guy who claimed that his car was for his business (and thus getting a tax exemption) was lying.
  • Determining whether a taxpayer receiving a package from overseas should have declared an amount of tax due.
  • Determining who is going around and offering tax-free services under the table.
  • Determining whether to go after the paper boy or baby sitter for failing to charge Fair Tax and undercutting professionals in those markets.
  • Determining how to charge Fair Tax on barter exchanges.

On a related point, how do we treat overseas consumption? In theory we can catch imported goods and have a customs charge, but what about the rich who simply decide to consume overseas or those who live near Canada and can get their hair cut or eat there? That is a huge tax shift in favor of those who can do so. The middle class family visiting Florida pays Fair Tax on their vacation. The wealthy family traveling to Paris does not.
The states already handle pretty much all of that. They would do so under the FairTax as well and receive money for doing so.

Again, go to the website. All of these questions are answered. Rather than just claiming you found a issue, do the research and check it out before just claiming you've found a big problem. The fact is you didn't.
 
The middle class family visiting Florida pays Fair Tax on their vacation. The wealthy family traveling to Paris does not.

But the wealthy family from Paris visiting Orlando does indeed pay the Fair Tax. So that argument washes out.
 
I've been intrigued by this idea that the IRS would only audit businesses and I think that it is clear that it wouldn't be true. Off the top of my head, here are some issues that the IRS would have to deal with on an individual level.
  • Confirming family size to set the prebate.
TRUE
  • Determining whether a non-natural born child is a dependent of a family claiming them to increase their prebate.
We already do that.
  • Determining whether the rich guy who claimed that his car was for his business (and thus getting a tax exemption) was lying.
Partially true, but we have that now, so no extra burden.
  • Determining whether a taxpayer receiving a package from overseas should have declared an amount of tax due.
Customs issue.
  • Determining who is going around and offering tax-free services under the table.
That would be regulating retailers, not individuals.
  • Determining whether to go after the paper boy or baby sitter for failing to charge Fair Tax and undercutting professionals in those markets.
There's no such thing as paperboys anymore. They're all adults with cars now.

Babysitting services provided by youths would not be subject to the FairTax.
  • Determining how to charge Fair Tax on barter exchanges.
Starbucks doesn't accept a chicken for a cup of coffee.
 
Buying used cars and houses and/or not spending extravagant amounts of money is hardly shopping at Goodwill.

You have uncovered anything or discovered a gotcha.
We are going to disagree on that point. The fact that your own data shows 80% of people will pay more seems like a killer gotcha. Oddly enough however not so much with me personally as I'd like a more progressive tax which that page 4 graphic would say this effects. Now I'm not sure that source is believable as it conflicts with most of the analysis I had read about these types of plans. My remaining objection stands. I like that the government has a tool to incentivize rather then just punish behavior.
 
Again, if this was sold as "eliminating personal taxes and replacing it with a tax on corporations" you'd be all over it.
 
Again, if this was sold as "eliminating personal taxes and replacing it with a tax on corporations" you'd be all over it.
Again, that's just marketing. I suspect you don't like Berry's plan to cut personal taxes and just increase corporate taxes either.

But frankly if the data in that page 4 graphics is right, I'm less against it than I was originally.
 
We are going to disagree on that point. The fact that your own data shows 80% of people will pay more seems like a killer gotcha. Oddly enough however not so much with me personally as I'd like a more progressive tax which that page 4 graphic would say this effects. Now I'm not sure that source is believable as it conflicts with most of the analysis I had read about these types of plans. My remaining objection stands. I like that the government has a tool to incentivize rather then just punish behavior.
Again, not everyone in those brackets would pay more, so it doesn't show 80% of people would pay more. It's probably closer to 20-30%, and it would change by year. Obviously new home and car purchases would drastically shift the tax burden for that year.

Most analysis objecting to the fair tax doesn't actually take into account the real fair tax, but instead a made up version of it. This is one of the most frustrating things to us supporters. We have to argue with people that are firmly misinformed and don't realize it.

As I mentioned earlier, I respect your objection. I don't agree with it, but it's better than baseless attacks on the fair tax. If you want to uses tax code to incentivize behavior then the fair tax isn't for you, unless that behavior is just responsible spending and saving, which is natural side effect of the fair tax. I support the fair tax because I dont think the government should be using tax code to incentivize behavior, though I can live with the side effect I just mentioned about saving.
 
Again, not everyone in those brackets would pay more, so it doesn't show 80% of people would pay more. It's probably closer to 20-30%, and it would change by year. Obviously new home and car purchases would drastically shift the tax burden for that year.

Most analysis objecting to the fair tax doesn't actually take into account the real fair tax, but instead a made up version of it. This is one of the most frustrating things to us supporters. We have to argue with people that are firmly misinformed and don't realize it.

As I mentioned earlier, I respect your objection. I don't agree with it, but it's better than baseless attacks on the fair tax. If you want to uses tax code to incentivize behavior then the fair tax isn't for you, unless that behavior is just responsible spending and saving, which is natural side effect of the fair tax. I support the fair tax because I dont think the government should be using tax code to incentivize behavior, though I can live with the side effect I just mentioned about saving.
I have yet to study that link, have you? My first assumption would be that the source would not publish a graphic indicating 80% would pay more under this plan if there was a sound reason to think the real number was between 20-30%. That said, I'm certainly more willing to take a look at the idea than I was at the start of this thread. Maybe during the 11am game tomorrow I'll educate myself more. I could probably be convinced to agree to giving up the carrots in exchange for shifting the tax burden more to the upper classes as I think that's the key to a sound economy.
 
You haven't given any facts. You simply have shown yourself to not be worth responding to with logic, so I'm not gonna waste my time on you. Sorry, but you simply aren't worth that much of my time. This is not you winning. It's you being written off.

Is it an effective 30% tax rate or not? Is there a tax of $2,300 embedded in a $10,000 purchase or not? You know the answer is yes.

Does the retailer give a flying f**k about that tax or does he only care about the base price that is high enough to ensure his profit? THAT'S what you're buying genius. So that $7700 is what HE wants...he can remit a sales tax on that or he can remit your BS tax and it makes no difference to him at all. Logic? You wouldn't know logic if it bit you in the ass.

So quit. You're just looking more and more clueless.
 
Is it an effective 30% tax rate or not? Is there a tax of $2,300 embedded in a $10,000 purchase or not? You know the answer is yes.

Does the retailer give a flying f**k about that tax or does he only care about the base price that is high enough to ensure his profit? THAT'S what you're buying genius. So that $7700 is what HE wants...he can remit a sales tax on that or he can remit your BS tax and it makes no difference to him at all. Logic? You wouldn't know logic if it bit you in the ass.

So quit. You're just looking more and more clueless.

What a load of crap. you know what the FairTax will really do? Encourage that car dealer to accept less than $7,700 after-tax revenue because the tax-inclusive price might seem high and result in the loss of the sale.

So, of course the retailer gives a flying f**k about the tax. It encourages him to price is product more competitively. Everybody wins.
 
What a load of crap. you know what the FairTax will really do? Encourage that car dealer to accept less than $7,700 after-tax revenue because the tax-inclusive price might seem high and result in the loss of the sale.

So, of course the retailer gives a flying f**k about the tax. It encourages him to price is product more competitively. Everybody wins.

More BS. The dealer is going to price the car to make as much profit as possible. Just like now. If you think the dealer is going to accept lower profits because the govt is getting 30% of the purchase price...well, good luck selling THAT to car dealers. You really don't understand how the FairTax works at all, do you?
 
You really don't understand how markets work, do you? I'm sure that Starbucks would love to charge $100 for a cup of coffee, but the price they can charge is determined by market forces, not the profit Starbucks would like to make.
 
Bottom line, the FairTax is never going to happen unless the people demand it. Politicians and bureaucrats will never voluntarily give up the power to write tax rules that benefit their friends and supporters.

Tarheel, you have shown that you'll never support the plan no matter what, and because of people like you, it'll probably never happen. So why can't you be smug in your "victory"? Why are you so threatened by this idea that will probably never gain enough political mass to go anywhere?
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT