HAHAHA...Stupid Fair Tax

[Bossobass]

Please, you're killing me.

Tax=BAD.

There are taxes from AtoZ in this country. My state legislature has empowered the state to tax an 'infinite' number of things.

Discussing the percentage as if it will be a fixed number forever is a chuckle. I've been in business for 32 years and I've never known a tax that hasn't gone up, up, up, up...

Corporate tax, estate tax, trusts tax, gift tax, insurance premium tax, partnerships tax, privilege license tax, property tax, unauthorized substance tax, septic permit tax, marriage license tax, building permit tax, battery disposal tax, RV road use tax, 911 telephone tax, gasoline tax, well permit tax, dog license tax, tire disposal tax, water craft registration tax, hunting license tax, tunnel toll tax, toll road tax, school tax, parks access tax, zoning tax, fishing license tax, fence permit tax...

I could run out of virtual ink describing the number of taxes local, state and federal gov'ts have allowed themselves to levy against us. Every fee any government requires is a tax. As all governments grow, so must the taxes to pay for them. They are infinite and they never go down.

Even the Bush tax cuts are a farce. They give you back a pittance, overspend, allow the Fed to print the difference and the inflation steals 10 times from your net worth over what the tax rebate amount was.

I like the fact that the income tax is voluntary, by their own code. If you ever let those bastards rename it 'the fair tax', or whatever, they'll make damn sure it's mandatory and open ended to be raised at will.

Tax=BAD. Say NO to any tax, I don't give a shit what it's called.

Bosso

 

[madRazor]

I find it amusing that people who argue against the Fair Tax are essentially defending the current system. I think we can all agree that replacing the income tax with nothing is better than the Fair Tax, so what is the argument here? Semantics I guess?

Ron Paul's position >>> Fair Tax >>> Current system

 

[Knightskye]

Seems like we got some Huckabee supporters posting in this thread. We have to borrow billions of dollars every day from foreign countries with our current system. Huckabee said the "Fair" Tax would be "revenue-neutral", during one of the debates. That means we'd still be increasing the defecit, because Huckabite wants to continue the warmongering nanny state.

It'd be 30% here in New Jersey, because our sales tax is 7%, and the "Fair" Tax would add 23 to it. Everybody's complaining about the high costs at the supermarket. The "Fair" Tax would drive them nuts.

 

[therealjjj77]

If you get a 'fair tax', you will just end up with both an income and sales tax.

I believe you are absolutely right on this. They'll blame it on the fair tax not bringing in enough since people are then able to save their own money.

The whole notion that China is doing better because it has a flat tax is ludicrous.

First, their flat tax is a flat income tax.

Second, the reason they are doing so well is because the jobs follow the dollars and that's where our dollars are going: to China.

Third, they don't have a world empire to maintain. Compare their military costs with ours.

Fourth, they have allowed way more financial liberty then what is being allowed in the U.S. Their tax ratio compared to ours:

U.S. 50-70% of the fruits of your labor
China 33% of the fruits of their labor

It's a lot more complicated then just, "Well China has a flat tax and look at how well they're doing!"

 

[therealjjj77]

Seems like we got some Huckabee supporters posting in this thread. We have to borrow billions of dollars every day from foreign countries with our current system. Huckabee said the "Fair" Tax would be "revenue-neutral", during one of the debates. That means we'd still be increasing the defecit, because Huckabite wants to continue the warmongering nanny state.

It'd be 30% here in New Jersey, because our sales tax is 7%, and the "Fair" Tax would add 23 to it. Everybody's complaining about the high costs at the supermarket. The "Fair" Tax would drive them nuts.

Anytime a politician says a number like 23%, they are lying. It will typically be 2 times or more the amount they say.

 

[Duckman]

Ron Paul's position >>> Fair Tax >>> Current system

The fair tax is not necessarily better than the current system. For one, I fear greatly that it could open the door to both a federal sales (VAT) tax as well as an income tax, unless its passage was tied to a constitutional amendment to explicitly ban an income tax (I don't think repealing the 16th amendment is sufficient, since with no wording they will find a loophole!)

Plus, it's all guesswork as to what this tax would need to be set at in order for the government to get the insane revenues it needs. Remember, this plan is about switching the revenues to come from sales, not necessarily reducing those revenues.

It will definitely lead to internet taxation, since there is no way they will let a 23-30% loophole through the system.

And I think it's unfair to people who paid an income tax and saved up money all their life, only to find they have to pay a 23-30% sales tax using that money after they retire.

I feel that attempts by fair tax supporters like Bootz to explain away these problems have been unconvincing.

 

[ButchHowdy]

I have two MAJOR issues with the alleged fairtax:

1.) The 'prebate' is nothing more than a scheme to "Number the people" or a fancy way to finally slip in the "National ID" unawares.


2.) Revenue neutrality is a goal of whom? I'm not interested in keeping the same flow of money to the government. THEY need a Weaning as We The People have had to endure!

 

[Grandson of Liberty]

23 becomes 24. . .25. . .26. . .etc, etc. . .

Even at 23 I think it's a bad plan.


"How much for this car?"

"$20,000"

"Hmmm, not bad. How much after tax, license and registration?"

"$30,000"

"Uh, no thanks."

That's the sound of an economy grinding to a halt.

 

[dsentell]

I recently heard an expert talk on the "fair tax". The tax they are currently talking about is a 30% tax. You simply apply a 30% tax on items, just the way we always calculate taxes. So, under the fair tax, an item priced at 1.00 will be 1.30 with the fair tax added (not adding any other taxes for simplicity).

But for this fair tax, the politicians have developed a new calculating method to con the people in believing that the tax is only 23%. Your 1.00 item will still be 1.30, but they point out that the extra 30 cents is 23% of 1.30. So, your tax increase is 23%.

I know, its hard to believe the government is trying to pull a fast one on us, but check it out . . .

 

[Xyrus2]

The other thing that drives me crazy about all the disingenuous FairTax trashing is when people fail to grasp that you will no longer have federal taxes taken from your paycheck. Not to mention no more capital gains taxes, alternative minimum taxes, death taxes, and corporate taxes. In other words you will have a lot more money to spend (or save) in the first place.

Whats important to understand is that with no corporate taxes driving up the cost of merchandise the price of goods and services will first drop (about 20%) before the new sales tax (23% inclusively figured) is added. An increase in price by only a few % points. So in the end, you have a lot more spending cash from the removal of all current federal taxes and then you will be paying a few % points more at the register with the new sales tax.

http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.html

I'll have to side with factcheck and the universities who studied this. Huckabee's version would be a disaster for the middle class, as their tax burden's would rise noticeably compared to others. In addition, his projection of what the rate would be to reach a "zero-sum" game is, as they put it "an accounting trick". A fair tax looks good on paper, but one has to be extremely careful how it is implemented. Some of the reasoning used is all to familiar sounding to "trickle-down economics". In short, it takes someone who truly knows about the economy and financial logistics to implement a real working fair tax, and Huckabee's plan is not the way you would implement it.

What's REALLY important to understand though is that our government SPENDS TOO MUCH. Until the government is cut, it doesn't matter what scheme you use for taxation. The idea here is to DROP the taxation rate, not figure out how to shift the burden around.

~X~

 

[danberkeley]

23% National + 8.75% where i live = 31.75% for me! YAAAYY!!

 

[Goldwater Conservative]

The level of misinformation being propagated in this thread is amazing considering how often the media does it to our candidate.

Listen, advertising the rate as 23% is fair considering the FairTax is being proposed as a replacement to the income tax, corporate tax, and payroll taxes, all of which are also listed in tax-inclusive terms.

And while it would increase prices by 30%, abolishing all the taxes it replaces would likewise drop prices and/or increase incomes, which means the net effect could be relatively little. Basically, it makes the taxes we already pay visible rather than embedded.

Anyway, I oppose it because the prebate program would expand the welfare state, but without the prebates it would appear regressive enough that the people would throw it out. Also, we could get saddled with it and an income tax if we weren't careful.

If we could cut spending by at least half, didn't include the prebates, linked its passage to repeal of the 16th Amendment, and passed a constitutional amendment capping federal tax rates, I'd support it.

 

[Flirple]

I find it amusing that people who argue against the Fair Tax are essentially defending the current system. I think we can all agree that replacing the income tax with nothing is better than the Fair Tax, so what is the argument here? Semantics I guess?

Ron Paul's position >>> Fair Tax >>> Current system

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!

 

[Flirple]

The level of misinformation being propagated in this thread is amazing considering how often the media does it to our candidate.

Listen, advertising the rate as 23% is fair considering the FairTax is being proposed as a replacement to the income tax, corporate tax, and payroll taxes, all of which are also listed in tax-inclusive terms.

And while it would increase prices by 30%, abolishing all the taxes it replaces would likewise drop prices and/or increase incomes, which means the net effect could be relatively little. Basically, it makes the taxes we already pay visible rather than embedded.

Anyway, I oppose it because the prebate program would expand the welfare state, but without the prebates it would appear regressive enough that the people would throw it out. Also, we could get saddled with it and an income tax if we weren't careful.

If we could cut spending by at least half, didn't include the prebates, linked its passage to repeal of the 16th Amendment, and passed a constitutional amendment capping federal tax rates, I'd support it.

Man, your posts are down right logical.

 

[integrity]

I find it amusing that people who argue against the Fair Tax are essentially defending the current system. I think we can all agree that replacing the income tax with nothing is better than the Fair Tax, so what is the argument here? Semantics I guess?

Ron Paul's position >>> Fair Tax >>> Current system

I don't see Fair Tax as a step in the right direction. that's the argument. It's merely a diversion from the real problem, overspending and Federal Reserve Fraud.

Does Huckabee address the FED FRAUD? I asked this before and got no response. Have any of you watched "Fiat Empire" (available on google video)

 

[jsu718]

I don't support a fair tax at all. Of all things, it isn't fair. Taxing goods makes them more costly, and therefore encourages people to spend less money. A 0% sales tax would encourage people to buy more, thereby helping businesses and driving the economy. An income tax doesn't discourage most people from making money... sometimes it encourages them to not make MORE money due to being at the top of a tax bracket, but rarely in other circumstances. A tax system should always be set up to the point where money gets circulated into the system, not horded by people who have more.

 

[jglapski]

Seems like we got some Huckabee supporters posting in this thread. We have to borrow billions of dollars every day from foreign countries with our current system. Huckabee said the "Fair" Tax would be "revenue-neutral", during one of the debates. That means we'd still be increasing the defecit, because Huckabite wants to continue the warmongering nanny state.

It'd be 30% here in New Jersey, because our sales tax is 7%, and the "Fair" Tax would add 23 to it. Everybody's complaining about the high costs at the supermarket. The "Fair" Tax would drive them nuts.

No, your tax in NJ would be 37%.

If you buy something worth $100, there would be $37 of tax added. Of course, the unintended consequence of this might be that you buy something for $110 in cash instead. You save money and the vendor saves money.

Don't let the dishonest proponents of this tax succeed in their trickeration.

 

[jglapski]

The level of misinformation being propagated in this thread is amazing considering how often the media does it to our candidate.

Listen, advertising the rate as 23% is fair considering the FairTax is being proposed as a replacement to the income tax, corporate tax, and payroll taxes, all of which are also listed in tax-inclusive terms.

And while it would increase prices by 30%, abolishing all the taxes it replaces would likewise drop prices and/or increase incomes, which means the net effect could be relatively little. Basically, it makes the taxes we already pay visible rather than embedded.

Anyway, I oppose it because the prebate program would expand the welfare state, but without the prebates it would appear regressive enough that the people would throw it out. Also, we could get saddled with it and an income tax if we weren't careful.

If we could cut spending by at least half, didn't include the prebates, linked its passage to repeal of the 16th Amendment, and passed a constitutional amendment capping federal tax rates, I'd support it.

1. See the post above yours. Every percentage is calculated as a base. Saying 23% is as dishonest as it gets. I'm sure that everyone who is saying it is 23% wouldn't mind their mortgage rates revised to be expressed as "inclusive."

2. Huckabee is a socialist, and this is a means of expanding the welfare state as you note.

3. I'm not sure that it is better than the income tax, for a host of reasons, namely:
a. Its supporters are being dishonest about the actual rate employed.
b. It will furnish a black market, whether its supporters believe it or not.
c. It adds another level of bureaucracy, but this time for retail businesses. That adds costs.

 

[Fox McCloud]

Maybe we should all move to Alaska; the only State that doesn't have a sales tax or a State income tax....then all you would have to put up with is the income tax (or flat tax if it were to pass). Of course, under Dr. Paul's plan, taxes would be very very little in Alaska.

Anyway, I'm an opponent, in general, of the Fair Tax; I don't like the idea of paying 30% more for an item, even if that is inclusive. Yes, I'm aware that I might be saving a great because I won't be paying income tax...but coming from someone who is very fiscally conservative...I can tell you that I will not be purchasing things nearly as much, or as willing to purchase things if they pass it.

if it were passed at this stage of the game, it could have horrible results to our economy (which I wouldn't mind, I'm just pointing this out), as most of our GDP is based upon Americans' spending.

as I said, a flat tax of 5% nationally, I think would be good; it could generate a modest amount of revenue (but not so much that the government would think "hey! I want more more more!), but it would be enough to make people think twice about purchasing a product (but not so much that it'd greatly hinder sales, as with a 30% inclusive tax).

it's a slight improvement over the income tax now, but it's still a fairly terrible idea.

 

[Patriot Henry]

Um, yes, nominally it would be a 30% tax...state sales tax is typically 7%.

Edit: also, I really have no problem with the Fair Tax at all. If you're going to have an income tax, a high sales tax is the way to do it. Solves a lot of the collection/underreporting/dishonesty issues. Also, my biggest problem with the income tax personally is that I feel it inhibits saving. The Fair Tax doesn't have this problem. Honestly, you should welcome the Fair Tax with open arms.

A high sales tax is a high sales tax, not an income tax. It solves no problems. It also inhibits spending. Spending is how people live. A sales tax, particularly a high sales tax, inhibits spending on life.

You should fight the "Fair Tax" tooth and nail. It will be far worse than a high sales tax. Read the actual bill. It'll make most Americans dependent on a monthly government check to survive. BAD IDEA!!!