Obama States 'You Don't Raise Taxes' in a Bad Economy

How is our current code preferable to the FairTax?

How is our current code preferable to the FairTax? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

stupid question. Be like asking which is better a cobra or rattlesnake bite. Plus why would you ask a 14 yr old a tax question

So you will have to find a new line of work if the Fair Tax were to ever be enacted. Along with almost every person that is currently employed by the IRS. Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

Yes, but I can find another job (I already am working on a 2nd career in the offseason). If I were to become convinced the fairtax.org proposal were the way to go, I'd support it. But if you think it makes me inherently biased, I can't really argue against that.

Incorrect CJ. The Fair Tax has nothing to do with how the revenues will be spent, only how they are collected. The spending issues will still have to be tackled in any event.

Which makes me wonder who benefits? If it's revenue neutral, why is it so much better?

Actually, Gulf, I would prefer exempting necessities from the FairTax rather than the prebate. I don't like the prebate, but it is still much preferable to our current system. And there is no way the prebate can become as convoluted as our current system. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Strangely, I think the prebate is the better idea, because as the website said, you'd have to really raise the rate if you didn't tax necessities at all.
And you are correct that it couldn't be as convoluted as our current system. Although the current system isn't all that convoluted on the lower end of the spectrum where Joe and Susie taxpayer reside.
BTW, not to be overly polemic (because I'm not at all interested in puerile name calling), but you kinda dodged the question.

BTW, not to be overly polemic (because I'm not at all interested in puerile name calling), but you kinda dodged the question. Originally Posted by gulflover

It is the elephant in the room they do not want to talk about.

They hear the 'Fair' and it comes from the conservative side and they embrace it without any critical thinking or research.

Most of the folks do not understand that we have two forms of taxes. Regressive which fund the State and local governments and the Federal tax system which one would hope , would be progressive to equal out what the poor pay. But evidently they want no part of that fair.

I do however agree that the Tax code needs reworking into something more fair. The policical fight amongist us is as always, "Just what do you believe is fair?"

What question did I dodge? The sad part is you people don't know anything about the FairTax. The stupid part is you don't want to know.

How is the FairTax regressive when all basic necessities of life are able to purchased free of any federal tax? How is it regressive when used items, such as cars, furniture, etc. can be purchased free from any federal tax? A person could live their entire life and not pay any tax.

New items and services would be subject to the tax. Now consider, every item or service you purchase, on average, has included in its cost the cost the company incurs complying with federal tax laws and regulations. If those costs were removed, the price level would decrease, due to competition, etc. The 23% would be added on to the price of those services and products (new) resulting in a general overall change in the price level of zero.

Then consider that no federal taxes would be withheld from anyone's check. You make $10 an hour, you get $10 an hour. You have more to spend. More spending = more tax revenue.

Then consider what would happen if Boeing, GM, Ford, etc, could reduce their costs by 23%. What would that do to the foreign market? We could undersell all of our international competitors. More cars, planes, etc, = more jobs = more domestic spending = more revenue.

Companies all over the world are looking for the most favorable tax climate. If we had the FairTax we would have the best tax climate. Companies would move there plants here. More companies = more jobs = more domestic spending = more revenue.

The consider the demand for labor as manufacturing and other areas of the economy increase. More demand for labor = higher wages, which equals more domestic spending which equals more revenue.

Then consider if Congress wants to raise taxes, according to the FairTax bill, it will take a 2/3 majority to raise the rate. There is no hidden way to raise taxes, it all has to be out in the open. What if they want to fuck around with exemptions? Again, it is all in the open. They can't hide it, they can't social engineer, the market would work for everyone, and everyone, even the rich, would be better off.

That's the FairTax in a nutshell. With or without the prebate, it is a system which respects privacy and promotes liberty and it places Congress under a microscope so they can't play around with the tax code to favor their friends and donors.

I don't see how anyone could prefer our current system to this.

[QUOTE=CuteOldGuy;2415674]What question did I dodge? The sad part is you people don't know anything about the FairTax. The stupid part is you don't want to know. [\QUOTE]

This one: I would appreciate if you could explain this. From their FAQ :
"Why not just exempt necessities from the FairTax instead of providing for a rebate?

The prebate is the most equitable and most efficient way to make the FairTax progressive. If the FairTax were to exempt necessities, the tax rate would have to be 20 percent higher than the FairTax rate with a prebate."

My reading of that is that it admits that a flat sales tax is inherently regressive. They've had to tinker with it in order not to unduly penalize the poor. Is this not correct?

How is the FairTax regressive when all basic necessities of life are able to purchased free of any federal tax? How is it regressive when used items, such as cars, furniture, etc. can be purchased free from any federal tax? A person could live their entire life and not pay any tax.

New items and services would be subject to the tax. Now consider, every item or service you purchase, on average, has included in its cost the cost the company incurs complying with federal tax laws and regulations. If those costs were removed, the price level would decrease, due to competition, etc. The 23% would be added on to the price of those services and products (new) resulting in a general overall change in the price level of zero.

Then consider that no federal taxes would be withheld from anyone's check. You make $10 an hour, you get $10 an hour. You have more to spend. More spending = more tax revenue.

Then consider what would happen if Boeing, GM, Ford, etc, could reduce their costs by 23%. What would that do to the foreign market? We could undersell all of our international competitors. More cars, planes, etc, = more jobs = more domestic spending = more revenue.

Companies all over the world are looking for the most favorable tax climate. If we had the FairTax we would have the best tax climate. Companies would move there plants here. More companies = more jobs = more domestic spending = more revenue.

The consider the demand for labor as manufacturing and other areas of the economy increase. More demand for labor = higher wages, which equals more domestic spending which equals more revenue.

Then consider if Congress wants to raise taxes, according to the FairTax bill, it will take a 2/3 majority to raise the rate. There is no hidden way to raise taxes, it all has to be out in the open. What if they want to fuck around with exemptions? Again, it is all in the open. They can't hide it, they can't social engineer, the market would work for everyone, and everyone, even the rich, would be better off.

That's the FairTax in a nutshell. With or without the prebate, it is a system which respects privacy and promotes liberty and it places Congress under a microscope so they can't play around with the tax code to favor their friends and donors.

I don't see how anyone could prefer our current system to this.

I wasn't questioning the fair tax proposal's merit; rather, my singular point is that sales taxes are inherently regressive. Which I think the fairtax website admits to however slightly. I think they've made a reasonable attempt to alleviate this. Many moons ago I had an econ prof who favored a tax on consumption, so I've been aware of the idea for a while. The people behind this proposal have clearly thought about it and tried to come up with solutions to some of the problems inherent in sales taxes. I'm not sure if it would work as well as they claim or not. I'd be happy if it did.
I'm well aware that our current system is broken. I don't really care whose fault it is. I'm not sure what the best fixes are. My personal belief is that we have to voluntarily curb our right to free speech and severely limit spending on political campaigns to start with. Term limits are a solution as well but they're fundamentally unsound. The ultimate cure would be to have a totally informed electorate, but I don't think we can do that without violating democratic principles.

Call it the Fairy Tale Tax. One you dream about but will never see. Reality ToTo. Take COG back to Kansas please. You missed his point btw cutiepie

Gulf, I can appreciate that you are wanting to have an intelligent discussion of this issue. That is a rarity on this board. First of all, how is the FairTax inherently regressive if the poor pay no tax, and the rich pay much more because they buy new and better things? It's hard to pay less than zero. If the country decides it still needs welfare payments, those can continue.

There is no FairTax on whatever you spend up to the poverty level. There is no FairTax on used items, like cars or furniture. A person could buy a 2011 car, and not be liable for any FairTax. Yes, there is no tax on investments, savings, etc, which is good for the rich, but it is also good for retirement plans, 401k's and the like. I just don't see where it is regressive. Everyone will be better off under the FairTax. If you could explain how it is regressive, and how people would fare worse under the FairTax than our current system, I would appreciate it.

WTF, you're a "fuc'n" clown who has nothing of substance to say, so STFU and let the grown ups talk.

Unfortunately you are correct on one point WTF, its a fairy tale. I can't think of more than a handful of politicians, at any level, that have any interest in transferring power and control back to the people.

Gulf, I can appreciate that you are wanting to have an intelligent discussion of this issue. That is a rarity on this board. First of all, how is the FairTax inherently regressive if the poor pay no tax, and the rich pay much more because they buy new and better things? It's hard to pay less than zero. If the country decides it still needs welfare payments, those can continue.

There is no FairTax on whatever you spend up to the poverty level. There is no FairTax on used items, like cars or furniture. A person could buy a 2011 car, and not be liable for any FairTax. Yes, there is no tax on investments, savings, etc, which is good for the rich, but it is also good for retirement plans, 401k's and the like. I just don't see where it is regressive. Everyone will be better off under the FairTax. If you could explain how it is regressive, and how people would fare worse under the FairTax than our current system, I would appreciate it.

WTF, you're a "fuc'n" clown who has nothing of substance to say, so STFU and let the grown ups talk. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Right, I'll agree that the fairtax proposal isn't regressive, or at least that they've taken steps to alleviate that. My original point in this thread was, in reply to a comment as to why sales taxes haven't been implemented in favor of income tax, is because they're inherently regressive. You have to make adjustments, which the fairtax proposal has attempted to, to alleviate that issue.
We might be kind of addressing the same thing from different viewpoints.

The reason the FairTax hasn't been implemented is that it would effectively destroy the control that Big Government and Big Business is able to exert over the people. It's not about fairness, or raising revenue. It's about control.

Johnny Cash has a perspective:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RWEZ...layer_embedded

But on a serious note, this video explains the real reason for our complex tax system:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGIfb...&feature=share

Yes, we may be addressing from different viewpoints. My main objective is to reduce or eliminate all government control except for what is provided in the Constitution, after the repeal of the 16th and 17th Amendments. FairTax fits right in.

So you will have to find a new line of work if the Fair Tax were to ever be enacted. Along with almost every person that is currently employed by the IRS.



Incorrect CJ. The Fair Tax has nothing to do with how the revenues will be spent, only how they are collected. The spending issues will still have to be tackled in any event. Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

youre sure?


Under the FairTax, family households of lawful U.S. residents would receive a “Family Consumption Allowance” (FCA) based on family size (regardless of income) that is equal to the estimated total FairTax paid on poverty level spending according to the poverty guidelines published by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services … Opponents of the plan criticize this tax rebate due to its costs. Economists at the Beacon Hill Institute estimated the overall rebate cost to be $489 billion (assuming 100 percent participation). In addition, economist Bruce Bartlett has argued that the rebate would create a large opportunity for fraud, treats children disparately, and would constitute a welfare payment regardless of need

It would be difficult to conceive that any tax system is more open to corruption than our current system. Bartlett refuses to understand the purpose of the prebate. Simply demagoguery.

If you could explain how it is regressive, and how people would fare worse under the FairTax than our current system, I would appreciate it.

WTF, you're a "fuc'n" clown who has nothing of substance to say, so STFU and let the grown ups talk. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I'm the fuc'n clown? I haven't asked anybody to explain how a flat tax is not regressive in nature even though he has explained to you that without the very exemptions you ask for it is regressive.

So you ask for a flat tax to simplify the tax code and then you want a bunch of exemptions...the man asked if this was a revenue neutral move, where was the shift in the tax burden? Simple question but it appears you do not understand even that basic tenet in the tax code!

You do not sound like a grown up, in fact it does not sound like you understand a 8th grade Civics Class.

Do you understand wtf revenue neutral is? If so do you understand that if you lower the tax burden on one segment of society and remain revenue neutral, that you will increase the tax burden on another segment of society.

He is asking where the shift will come from and who it will go to. You act as if there is some kind of Jack in the Bean Stalk pill in your tax plan and our economy will just grow its way out of debt. That has been the reasoniing to this cut cut cut taxes and we are where we are right now because of it.

How can any of you not see the basic math of lowere and lower taxes and higher deficits. Cut spening you say but nobody want to touch Defense spending. You can not cut spending without doing that and our vast military complex seems to be saying no to that. Maybe we can get ex President Hosni Mubarak to come show our Generals how real military rule should be done.

In addition, economist Bruce Bartlett has argued that the rebate would create a large opportunity for fraud, treats children disparately, and would constitute a welfare payment regardless of need Originally Posted by CJ7

It would be difficult to conceive that any tax system is more open to corruption than our current system. Bartlett refuses to understand the purpose of the prebate. Simply demagoguery. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You are so full of shit. Every system is chocked full of curruption. Do you not understand a thing about good ole human nature?

Bartlett is just speaking the truth, you are the one full of demagoguery.