Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
MattTheSkyWalker
- Thread starter Deus Ex Machina
- Start date
atlantabiolab
New member
The Fair Tax is the way to go. I have listened to John Linder present it many times and he always holds his ground.
Deus Ex Machina
New member
I like the idea of keeping your money that you worked for, and instead paying taxes via a consumption tax
Deus Ex Machina said:
I would support that.
In fact, I need to read more; maybe I will.
Synpax
Well-known member
I agree with the national sales tax over the income tax.
Just consider how much less intrusive it would be.
While the NST has a lot of drawbacks, they benefits overcome those of theincome tax.
Rather than having to monitor 100 million or so tax fielers, the IRS would need only focus on maybe 100,000 retail establishments.
Just consider how much less intrusive it would be.
While the NST has a lot of drawbacks, they benefits overcome those of theincome tax.
Rather than having to monitor 100 million or so tax fielers, the IRS would need only focus on maybe 100,000 retail establishments.
Synpax
Well-known member
I agree with the national sales tax over the income tax.
Just consider how much less intrusive it would be.
While the NST has a lot of drawbacks, they benefits overcome those of theincome tax.
Rather than having to monitor 100 million or so tax fielers, the IRS would need only focus on maybe 100,000 retail establishments.
Also, income taxes should not be totally eliminated on corporations, but brought down to about 2%? Why? If they don't pay the taxes here, they will have to pay them somewhere according to international law. So keep them here, but make them low.
Just consider how much less intrusive it would be.
While the NST has a lot of drawbacks, they benefits overcome those of theincome tax.
Rather than having to monitor 100 million or so tax fielers, the IRS would need only focus on maybe 100,000 retail establishments.
Also, income taxes should not be totally eliminated on corporations, but brought down to about 2%? Why? If they don't pay the taxes here, they will have to pay them somewhere according to international law. So keep them here, but make them low.
lamamacita
New member
It is probably good in theory, but would never happen in our life time.
Tiervexx said:
yep, disgusting. At least with this tax one can save the money they earn.
Lao Tzu
New member
Deus Ex Machina said:
This would be easy to get around with things like ebay, and would create a large black market.
Also, wouldn't this stagnate the economy, if people saved instead of spent?
Overall i think i support the idea, but i just don't see it happening. If sales tax goes from 5% to 23% overnight a black market will spring up and international swap meets like ebay will grow much faster. Distributors will ship out of Canada & mexico to avoid taxes, shit like that.
Lao Tzu
New member
Tiervexx said:
Why wont it? if there is less consumer consumption, then you have a recession, low hiring and layoffs which causes people to spend even less for fear they will be layed off next and need a nest egg. I dont know tons about economics though but superficially that seems to be the way it works. Enlighten me.
Not to mention that if people start buying billions of products in Canada instead of the US then you will have economic stagnation in the US.
D
Deleted member 33117
Guest
Yeah, great a national sales tax would be perfect. We could get all of the money we need from people who have to buy things in order to survive, and take a big chunk of their money, while those who have enough money to tuck it away in savings would pay a much smaller percentage of their income. Nothing makes people happier than when the rich get richer and the poor get poorer I always say....
Lao Tzu
New member
BodyByFinaplix said:
not really.
http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/sketch.html
Therefore, when the FairTax Act of 2001 abolishes the federal income tax system, prices will drop 20% to 30%. The proposed FairTax rate is 23%. So, instead of paying 15.3% of your paycheck in payroll taxes, plus an average of 28% of your paycheck in federal income tax, for a total of about 43% of your paycheck going to the federal government in Washington, you pay only a 23% consumption tax each time you purchase a new good or service for your own personal consumption above the federal poverty level.
So the poor will pay less in taxes, and the rich more because the rich live above the poverty line and the poor below it. The only problem is the poverty line is based on outdated ideas like '3x what a family spends on food' which were made when families spent 2x as much on food as a % of their budget as they do now.
At the same time the rich will save alot on their income taxes. so in a way i guess its a way to help the rich. But at the same time, it is a consumption tax which makes it alot more voluntary than normal taxation.
Tiervexx
New member
nordstrom said:
When people save their money a large amount of that will still end up being spent or invested sooner or later, it is not fired into space.
And many people will still end up buying just as much and paying close to the same amount in taxes, but this way is a lot more efficient and less intrusive than the income.
I honestly don’t know how to answer your questions about black markets and buying shit from Canada, and I am not a big proponent of replacing the income with a much bigger consumption tax. I would much rather see spending cut at least enough so that we could just keep the same consumption tax.
nordstrom said:
when people save money, it is not hidden under a pillow or yanked out of circulation. More money saved = more money in banks, more loans to individuals and corporations at more favorable interest rates. etc.
enlightened?
atlantabiolab
New member
Tiervexx said:
I am not against all taxes, as I understand their function in society. If government's function is to protect my rights, then it cannot do this in a vacuum, it needs resources. With a consumption tax I at least have the ability to decide how much I am willing to pay.
atlantabiolab
New member
BodyByFinaplix said:
LOL...so rich people don't "need things to survive", huh? The rich are not known for spending gobs of money on multiple cars, private jets, the newest technologies, banquets, expensive weddings, trips to foreign countries, etc.; this is really the realm of the poor, right?
Pull your head out of the sand and come back to reality.
Lao Tzu
New member
MattTheSkywalker said:
Yeah i knew all that, but i don't see how investing hundreds of billions and having the APR go down 2% will compensate for the lack of purchases. People will buy houses and cars when the APR is low, medium and high. I don't know if the two (spending billions vs. investing billions) will have the same effect on the economy.
nordstrom said:
facilitates corporate borrowing and investment....
Tiervexx
New member
atlantabiolab said:
When I say I despise them I mean to say that I hate them on a moral level. I did not say anything about their role in society.
But whether or not they are truly necessary is a lot more debatable than most people realize. The government only needs about 100 billion a year to protect basic rights. This amount could easily be raised by completely voluntary methods. Most people would be willing to give 5% of their income to fund a government that protects rights, you just have to force people to fun the insane, bloated, welfare, police state that so many countries now have.
David D Friedman, Murray Rothbard, and a few others have explained how private law enforcement has worked in the past in some places and how it might work here. I don’t understand all the mechanics behind it yet, but the very idea of it is very tempting.
collegiateLifter
New member
You do and you don't.atlantabiolab said:
Your entire case of being a victim of direct taxation holds no water though.
You only pay US taxes due to your decision to live in and be a citizen of the USA.
atlantabiolab said:
altough course, his point is fairly correct in that effective consumption taxes do tend to hit the poor harder than the rich.
---
all that being said, I tend to agree with a very low flat rate income tax and more indirect taxing. Property taxes bother me the most. The very idea that after buying a house and land, you must continually pay a tax (a "rental fee" on your ownership) every year is offensive to me.
atlantabiolab
New member
collegiateLifter said:
What country could you demonstrate to us that has no taxation? I assume you would insinuate some deserted island where we could live primatively with no oppression of government.
While we accept the country we live in as "the best", this does not mean that we must accept the principles which are in place. Man is not completely culpible for any wrongdoings commited against him simply because he decides to live in an area where there is a statistically high chance of crime. He may have taken the risk and bears a portion of the blame for not leaving, he is not solely responsible for the actions taken by others, for they have no right to commit such acts against him. You cannot absolve the violator of his action merely because the other person "was there".
You have not demonstrated anything, merely stated that it is so. Use some reasoning and maybe you have a case. As stated, you have said nothing.
Why an income tax, why not a consumption tax? What is the magic of an income tax over that of other taxes?
MattTheSkywalker said:
But while this whole process takes place, it may create a recession for a short period.
I like the Fair Tax system but I realize there would be a black market. But think about it, having full control on your money is probably the biggest right someone can have.
atlantabiolab
New member
manny78 said:
Why would there be a black market? I have heard some mention this, but no real reasoning behind it. Elaborate.
atlantabiolab said:
Ok let's make this simple for everyone:
US has a 23% sales tax
Canada a 7% sales tax (but nothing when you sell outside)
You need to buy something, let's a DVD player at 200$. Now add 46$ in taxes. That's 246$. I could ship the same DVD player to your door for 200$ plus 15$ in shipping. I know, customer support and everything but people usually look at thing in a short term way.
The more expensive is your item, more chances you have to see them sell on the black market big time. So as long as shipping gets more expensive than buying the item at your local store, the system is ok.
That was for the internet aspect. Black market could also take place the good old way. Tricked accounting for example.... Back in 1990, when GST (goods and services tax) was introduced in Canada (along with provincial taxes), the black market grew like it never did before. Even today, the provincial govt. is still losing over 2 billions a year. But I still think a Fair Tax is better than having a bunch of clowns deducting money from your pay check.
collegiateLifter
New member
Thats a funny argument you have there. I will deal with it later when I have some time.atlantabiolab said:
atlantabiolab said:
check out http://economist.com/displaystory.c...=3fc8d01-128f4e1f-7c3a-4755-9bb5-2547ee46f2e2
manny78 said:
YES!!!
Property rights, an individual's right to the wealth he has produced, the mother of all other rights!!!!
The right to keep it, not to give it to whatever entitlement recipient that government can drum up in order to stay in power,
Woo hoo! Property rights. I have a dream....
atlantabiolab
New member
manny78 said:
Problem is that empirically, most cases of black markets occur when there is either prohibition of the sale of an item or service, i.e. government legislation, or prohibitive costs. With the fair tax, the studies support the idea that prices will fall, as the imbedded costs of income taxation will be eliminated, thus allowing for price competition. You are making your assertion based on the idea of 23% tax on goods and services along with our present state of income. The fair tax eliminates the tax on income, thus I would have an immediate 27% increase in my spendable income. I don't see the incentive to go searching for black markets, since the incentive would be low.
We have higher costs now and I don't see a huge black market occuring, although there is the problem of tax evasion that occurs today, something that would be eliminated.
collegiateLifter
New member
MattTheSkywalker said:
lol. You guys are turning into zealots. Liberty of thought and discussion trumps property as number 1 imo
atlantabiolab said:
As I said, buying on the black market has benefits as long as there's a substantial saving if the tax saved is far superior to the cost of shipping, then I can see it happening. I already do this. For example, I never bought a firearm in my province (except for private sales). Always outside cause I could save 15%. But for most products, the Fair Tax wouldnt have any impact.
Tiervexx
New member
collegiateLifter said:
They are linked!!!!
The truly free, and thinking sociaties in history were all capitalist, likewise the most controled sociaties almost always denied property rights.
One reason for this is because a sociaty will obviously collapes if you let people do what they want, while living off of "public property." Meanwhile people in a private property system have very little motivation to try to prevent others from wasting their lives if they choose too because they will only be harming themselves.
Robert Jan
New member
we're all most severely undertaxed
collegiateLifter
New member
Tiervexx said:
yes.
Tiervexx said:
no you are wrong. You can have intellectual but not political or economic. Or political and intellectual but no economic. Or you can have intellectual and economic but no political......
in practice they tend to group, but that does not mean they group out of neccessity.
A
Apöllo
Guest
I hear Jessie "The Body" Ventura is going to run for President in 2008 on the Consumption Tax topic.
A
Apöllo
Guest
Tiervexx said:
That's exactly why we should send lots of money to poor black schools.
p0ink
New member
manny78 said:
as atlantabiolab already stated, prices on products would inevitably go down. check it out
instead of their being an income tax, which keeps people in poverty (by design), there would be a tax on consumption.
the poor would benefit the most from this, because they would be able to keep every penny, which would otherwise be going to the federal government, and save and/or spend it on only that which they need.
if you repeal the taxes on business ALL of the prices will go down. for example, take a loaf of bread; the seed provider gets taxed, the farmer who grows the wheat gets taxed, the machines he uses to harvest gets taxed, the company that mills and processes the wheat gets taxed, the company that makes the bread gets taxed, the company that makes the bag the bread comes in gets taxed, the company that designs the bread logo gets taxed, the company that makes the twisty-tie gets taxed, the company that makes the boxes the bread comes to the food stores gets taxed, the food store that sells the bread gets taxed, etc.
guess who ends up eating the cost for all of those taxes? the consumers.
if this were to get passed, the amount of economic growth this country would see would be mind-boggling. companies from all over the globe would be rushing to setup shop in our nice, tax-free country. unemployment would no longer be a problem, and the stock markets would make mind-boggling gains.
sure, we will pay a higher tax on that which we buy, but we will pay tax only if we buy something. no longer would there be a tax keeping people from becoming wealthy.
collegiateLifter
New member
p0ink said:
in and of itself that is very funny.
Poor retain more income but their purchasing power actually goes down. Check out the economist article i posted.
atlantabiolab
New member
collegiateLifter said:
Post the article, since it is for members only. If not, explain this concept, since I don't, on the face of it, see how increasing one's income and having price reductions on goods equates to lower purchasing power.
A
Apöllo
Guest
Bottom line of this seems to be that middle class people usually spend more than their income allows by way of credit.
atlantabiolab
New member
Apöllo said:
Because people overspend, this is justification for confiscating their income? The fairness doctrine is for children, it is totally subjective and only used to penalize certain groups, it is nothing more than "take from him because he has more".
The rationale behind the above argument implies that because some people make poor decisions, the implementation of a tax which deprives them of their earnings, is better than allowing them the freedom of spending their total earnings as they see fit. This is totally irrational and totally punitive, there is nothing positive in the current system, save the subjective idea that the rich "pay their fair share". Why should the lower classes not be allowed to keep their income and save or overspend if they so wish? Do they not do this currently? Are casinos, gas station lottery ticket lines, and credit card companies not filled with lower income earners? How are they better off, in this reality, with less of their income than more? Anti-consumption tax pundits have no empirical evidence to support their support for income taxation, since there is no savings currently in the lower income eschelons.
A
Apöllo
Guest
atlantabiolab said:
In a word, yes.
collegiateLifter
New member
not exactly guys. Did you click the link? I coulda sworn that if you have the full link you get access to it. Too busy to do it now as its crunch time toward the end of the semester here.
