I might or might not support some version of a national sales tax, but the article you put up is a mess. For example:

If you were in a 23-percent income tax bracket, the federal government would take $23 out of your paycheck for every $100 you made. With the FairTax, if the federal government gets $23 out of every $100 spent in America, the same total revenue is delivered to the federal government. This is revenue neutrality.

What about all the people who aren't in a 23% tax bracket?

So, instead of paycheck-earning Americans paying 15.3 percent of their paychecks in Social Security/Medicare payroll taxes, plus an average of 18 percent of their paychecks in federal income tax, for a total of about 33 percent, consumers in America pay only $23 out of every $100.

So much for revenue neutrality. The author is saying that currently, the federal goverment claims 33% of workers' income, and his plan is going to collect 23% of consumer spending. The latter figure, for the math impaired, is much less.

I don't have any idea how that "prebate" scheme is intended to be implemented, either.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

[/reply]I think your logic is a little crooked. The gov't is not giving us a blank check, as you suggest.

Look, people are people. Plenty of rich people spent their way into the poorhouse, and plenty of middle income people save lots of money. You can't just use a broad stroke and say 'if you give people more money they will spend it foolishly.' You have no basis to believe that reducing people's incomes will make them more apt to do anything but seek ways to increase it again. The article quoted above could be interpreted as saying 'when clinton increased the tax on the richest in america in the '90s, rich people found ways to reduce their tax burden through credits, write-offs, etc. We need to fix the system again.' If you increase the tax burden on middle class people, I guarantee the same thing would happen.

I just can't believe you argue percentage over means. It's just a number. Means effects how people live on a daily basis, if they have enough money for investments, real estate, education. Maybe even food. The reason the progressive tax system was implemented was due to means. The more money you have, the more means you have and the less taxation will hurt you.

It's good sense to have a straightforward tax code, especially if 25% are cheating. It's not good sense to increase the tax burden on the middle class, however. And if taxation reduces something, taxing consumption would not be good for the economy.

Just to talk about a couple of your points.

"I'm paying around 35% in taxes, state, local, etc. which is my fair share. "

You should probably get someone to look at your taxes because that seems to be a big percentage. I'm not paying that nearly high of a percentage of income to both fed and state (maybe you have local taxes, I don't) and I only take the mortgage interest and property tax deductions.

"Sure, I do all of them, but my measely 20k investment doesn't require the resources that a 10 million dollar (or even a million) investment requires of the FDIC."

I don't know of anyone who would put a million bucks in an FDIC insured savings account. That money would be invested in much more appropriate things than the 1-2% you can get in a savings account. Plus, the limit of the FDIC insurance is $100,000. So anything over that doesn't mean jack to the FDIC. It just means that if your bank goes under you lose the remaining $900,000.

"So thanks to all this crap, my friend that makes 150k only reports 85k income to the IRS. Sure he's in a higher tax bracket, but if you look at the taxes he pays (40k), his percentage is lower than mine (27% compared to 35%). "

Now your comparing apples to oranges. You stated that you paid 35% counting fed, state, and local, but then you took your "friends" numbers and only used the federal numbers you didn't add in the state numbers. Plus it sounds like your friend owns his own business so don't forget that he pays both the employer and employee portion of his own and his employee's SS, medicare, etc taxes. So, if you are going to make a point about percentages at least make the comparison valid.

Sorry dude, apples to apples comparison. Although I did say IRS, I meant that in reference to the amount of income he reports, not the tax rate. Sorry for the mis-statement.

My point with the FDIC was the same as the FAA. I don't know much about either one, but the point is that the more resources you have and use the more gov't services you use. Overall point is that even though people think the rich are off paying tons of taxes without using gov't services while the poor are leeches, that's not the case.

are you including all of his SS payments? are you including yours in your calculation?

I'm just not buying this story and maybe this year is an anamoly as he was able to take advantage of the one time SUV loophole, but I would be willing to bet that in a typical year he's paying a higher percentage in taxes.

"but the point is that the more resources you have and use the more gov't services you use."

Easily said, not easy to back up. In fact the mere theory of "scale of economy" goes completely against it. It's generally cheaper to get things done the more times or "bigger" you do it.

All that aside I completely fail to see how a rich guy uses and what services of the US governement he/she uses more of.

As stated in an earlier post, the largest budget line items in the federal government are, not in any particular order and coming from memory.

Interst on debt,
SS
National defense/military
Health services

The only one of the above line items I can see a persons "taking more advantage of" is possible "health services", but I don't see a whole lota rich people getting free condoms down at the local health department. Yes I know they cover otehr stuff just trying to lighten it up.

Certainly they don't get more SS, nor more benefit from miltary defense and not likely any benefit from the interest paid.

I've heard the argument "The rich guy's use more stuff" before, but have yet to see any proof of it.

~Matt

Guys, it's simplifying things to just argue the case between individuals who make tons and those who make little. How can you really quantify what gov. resources a rich person really uses vs. what resourses a poorer person uses? Look out the window, we use stuff every day made possible by taxes. So do small businesses, so do gigantic companies.

I would also argue that there hasn't been a federal adminsitration maybe ever that has actually rolled back taxes on the middle class so much it made a difference to the day-to-day lives of people. I can't imagine it ever happening, though I can envision more and more taxes, regardless of who is in office. Some say Reagan, maybe, and the Bush 2 cut, but its very debatable if it helped substantially. As someone who is very middle class, I saw no effect at all from Bush's tax cut. When there is a little period of expansion in th U.S., its questionable how much of that was caused my small tax cuts. Global economic factors are much more important.

When you are rich you usually don't earn a wage that can be taxed. It's all about companies and corporations and the people invested in those enterprises. So you can't just easily determine what people actually "make" and "spend" in those situations. It's very complex, and the tax code is increasingly geared toward big companies. Johnson's book "Perfectly Legal" outlines how huge, profit-making enterprises pay next to nothing in taxes, due to these complexities. Theoretically, companies should pay taxes on profits, but many pay very little, compared to what we all pay on our wages. I offer no solution, just saying it's way more complex than "those rich people don't pay their fair share" or "those poor people are really getting off easy." Neither statement is true, if you look into it, IMO.

"I offer no solution, just saying it's way more complex than "those rich people don't pay their fair share" or "those poor people are really getting off easy." Neither statement is true, if you look into it, IMO. "

Without a doubt it's more complex than such a simple statement. I'd also agree that corporations are "getting off easy" compared to any individual, rich or poor.

But my understanding of the discussion was not about corporations, but individuals. IMHO corporations are a completely different entity than individuals. Also teh arguement that "rich people have all of these corps" and benefits etc etc. Seems a bit fallaciouss to me since corporations are fairly easy to create, even for us poor people. I have two and use the benefits of them as much as I can.

"Look out the window, we use stuff every day made possible by taxes. So do small businesses, so do gigantic companies."

I would also agree with this and exactly the reason why I think the arguement of "tax the rich because they use more stuff" is also a poor point. again, sure a huge corporation comprised of MANY people. Likely rich and poor use much more resources than an individual. But a rich person is not a corporation, but an individual, and can't use significantly more governement resources than any other individual.

If we start throwing corporations into the mix it does get REALLY messy because corporations are neither rich nor poor. Nor comprised of just rich or poor.

~Matt

Gee, thanks for the $200k+ savings your plan will generate for me. Rather than spend a couple of hours going step-by-step & destroying the fantasy this "system" lays out, I'll simply post what 30 seconds of internet searches has dug up on your "organization's" plan:

Economist William G. Gale at the Brookings Institute has determined that most low income families will pay more taxes. "Under the Americans for Fair Taxation proposal, taxes would rise for households in the bottom 90 percent of the income distribution, while households in the top 1 percent would receive an average tax cut of over $75,000."

In a nutshell: the poor + middle classes spend a disproportionate % of their income on everyday goods. They aren't good savers. As I've previously pointed out, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the rich to spend what they earn. So basically you are penalizing the poor/middle classes for being consumers & rewarding the rich who, for the most part, aren't exactly the world's biggest spenders.

While I'm not going to refute every point in this nutjob manifesto, this paragraph actually gave me ten minutes of laughter: "No tax on used goods. The amount you pay to fund the government is totally visible. With the FairTax you are only taxed once on any good or service, the sales tax is charged just as state sales taxes are today. If you choose to buy used goods - used car, used home, used appliances - you do not pay the FairTax."

Gee, I bet every manufacturing company in the world is just salivating at this prospect. So I can just buy a 1 y.o. car every 2-3 years & never have to pay tax on it. This will do wonders for new goods purchases. I'm suprised Detroit hasn't jumped on this bandwagon. This will do wonders for our economy, housing stats & employment rates. Well thought out.


When will you right-wing nutjobs realize you are part of a society, and that one of the main goals of the society should be the betterment of everyone, not just the top 10%? This plan has ME-ME-ME-ME written all over it....even if the writing was in crayon.

Congrats on the 2nd stupidest post on this topic.

---

____________
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." John Rogers

When will you right-wing nutjobs realize you are part of a society, and that one of the main goals of the society should be the betterment of everyone, not just the top 10%? This plan has ME-ME-ME-ME written all over it....even if the writing was in crayon.

As soon as you leftwing, bed wetting, elitest, arrogant, jerks come to realize your socialistic views for the US are a pipe dream. You crack me up with your holier than thou attitudes. You think because you make more $$ than 99.9% of the people on this board you can throw around your wild ass ideas. If you had done any research into the topic you would know this is not a "right wing nut job" idea but one put forth by the Libertarian party. Why is it that because someone has an idea that may in fact be fair to ALL members of the tax paying society you automatically dismiss it. I've asked you before and you never answered but why don't you take all your extra $$ you have and do something to help the poor people you want to protect ? Please take your socialistic utopian society ideas and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.

you would know this is not a "right wing nut job" idea but one put forth by the Libertarian party.

OK, so it's not a right-wing nut job idea, it's just a plain old run of the mill nut job idea. ;)

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Nice anger! Way to keep the ideals of compassionate conservatism burning bright. Good, reasoned argument--I'm sure your much more rational in person than your rantings on the internet would indicate.

As far as my $$ & contributions to poor (as if this is any indication of compassion): lets see, this year I bought 2 lots for Habitat for Humanity, am setting up a scholarship program at my old college, am sponsoring an America Works teaching program in New Mexico, plus have given high five figures to Peace Corp, Teach for America (which DeLay & Bush succeeded in killing from Americorps & to whom I'll probably give 6 figures this year), and several local charities.

Holier than thou? No, just smarter than you & bright enough to realize that being part of a society means looking out for everyone, not just myself. You just don't seem to get that though.

---

____________
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." John Rogers

+++++

---

http://www.optruth.org/

Smarter than me? Again your arrogance is evident.

Interesting point Tom. You seem to believe that wealth is unlimited and is something that humans create. People who think way believe that if you encourage wealth creation and accumulation, then you'll have someone like Bill Gates come along, get rich, and be able to spend $750 million on a worldwide children's immunization program.

Others, however, believe that wealth is finite and that Bill Gates and people in the United States and other developed countries hoard the wealth and that, but for the hoarding, folks in Africa and undeveloped countries would be able to afford their own immunizations.

People in the first camp will engage in arguments about the tax structure and whether it encourages or discourages wealth creation. People in the second camp will argue that to be "fair" we must transfer the hoarded wealth to those that don't have it.