Base taxes on net worth only.

The Fair tax would give those paycheck to paycheck people more money in their pocket--the tax rebate would give them that, and in addition, no money would be taken out of their paycheck for SS or Medicare. The people that would be hurt by it, are people like me who have deductions beyond the standard.

The problem with your plan is that it's insufficient to replace current taxes.

 

It depends on the presence and treaties that afford protection for those assets.

- - - Updated - - -

Not according to my tables. But if 4.50 or 4.75 works better then so be it. SS and Medicare are not really taxes they are retirement plans named taxes because they are mandatory. Those would not be changed in any way.

 

Not sure how you figure that. Most of the country gets money back, that wouldn't be happening under my plan, and the rich elites paying a lot less than 16% if they know how to play the system (on what they actually claim, not what they make), would stop.

All that earned income credits and corporate welfare would have to be eliminated, no tax breaks for 6th house in the Hampton's etc... so income taxes would be raking in tons more than it does now. Not to mention the adjustments that would require a smaller government, stability, reasonable legislation measures, to make the government more productive and manageable. The states would be getting most of the money they have to beg and bribe congress for now. I can't see anything in my plan that would not work, other than a consorted effort to keep it from working.

The tax code in this country is a horrendous corrupt mess of BS. Simplifying it and making it more consistent across the board would go along way in getting this country back to a more stable economy. Crony capitalism (which includes almost each and every welfare/subsidies program), the plutocracy (yet I repeat myself), and the rich/elites tax code is three things choking the life out of this country's ability to compete, not poor people.

 

If a majority of citizens want to preserve and protect certain tracts of land collectively while allowing for the regulated and managed access is as much a right as any one individual if not more so since this country is founded on majority rule. A few miserly fascist tyrants will not likely ever form a majority.

 

So.... All I have to do to avoid taxes is spend all my money on high-dollar hotel rooms, booze and hookers?

 

It would actual apply a downward force on low yield investment making the higher quality business plans more attractive. High volume speculative risk taking would be curtailed. But most of all, the interest rate disparity between what the fed has to do for inflation control and what the lenders make available would disappear.

 

And you are going to sell a flat tax to people who are currently getting money back?

The Fair Tax gives those folks a prebate, so they will still be getting money from the government. In addition, they will only be taxed on the purchase of new items.

 

You need to understand though that progressive taxation works precisely because the greater % paid by wealthier people is more easily absorbed by them due to the vast amount of money they have, compared to even a small % on poor people, which has a disproportionate and devastating effect on their finances.

I'm not even saying tax the rich at 50%, but a person making minimum wage shouldn't pay the same % of their income as a rich person when a much greater % of their income is needed for them to survive.

 

And those who spend their money wisely will pay less taxes, hoard, and add little to nothing to the economy. Nobody said there is a perfect way, just something more manageable, and less complicated would be nice.

So who collects the taxes in your scheme? The merchants? And if I pay them my taxes and they decide not to claim them, who's going to know they are stealing my money? Where is the checks and balances, do I need to turn in my receipts at the end of the year to keep these merchants and businesses in check?

Don't see anything changing, because like I said, the rich/elites tax code is working just fine for the rich/elites, and they are all that matters.

 

Just what we need. Another government incentive to live check to check and further increase wealth disparity. Good job.

 

There are already systems in place for sales tax, and occasionally you hear about a business being busted for it.

I do agree, nothing will change. My main point about the Fair Tax is that I support it, despite the fact that in my particular financial situation, it wouldn't help me and would probably cost me. An earlier poster claimed that all tax reform was based on self interest. I'd be willing to take the hit, because I see the Fair Tax as a way to level trade and encourage U.S. manufacturing.

Savers will pay less in taxes, but to balance them out, much of the black market money (Drug and crime) would end up being taxed.

 

Only if it is made legal. Taxing income and eliminating all other taxes eliminates all the fraud, tax evasion, etc... as long as everything is claimed. but like I said there will always be a way around it, one way or another.

I was the one saying that, but I was referring to the people who make the law. That is why a fair tax or anything similar will never see the light of day, because the current tax code was created implemented and designed to benefit the rich/elites.

 

Hard to hide the purchases you make at chain stores, etc. The money involved in those kinds of purchases are currently not taxed. If the Fair Tax came about, they would be.

 

Property isn't protected by government anyway only the right to own property is protected. Strictly speaking one could say that after ones right to property has been aggressed upon it is the government who enforces compensation for the aggrieved from the aggressor. Technically that is not protecting the right to own property nor property just enforcement of compensation.

 

First of all, we need to make a distinction between state/local taxes and federal taxes. State/local taxes pay for such things as schools, police, fire departments, and state infrastructure. As far as I'm concerned, each state can collect taxes for these services as they see fit, so I'm not going to address the topic, unless someone wants to specifically discuss Pennsylvania.

That leaves us with federal taxes to fund federal services. Looking a the constitutionally authorized services from article I, section 8, I see several that could be paid for directly by those who opt to use those services. So those who wish for their money to be minted into US coins could pay a fee for this service. Those who wish to use the post roads and offices could pay postage and tolls for these services. So that basically leave federal courts, the army, and the navy. Since the purpose of the army and navy are to protect the states from invasion, each state should be billed its share of the cost, based upon that state's population. The federal courts could be funded by those using them via court fees.

 

Sounds like a good reason to support a land value tax which doesn't cause any of these distortions.

"The striking result is that a tax on [land] rent will lead to no distortions or economic inefficiencies. Why not? Because a tax on pure economic rent does not change anyone's economic behavior. Demanders are unaffected because their price is unchanged. The behavior of suppliers is unaffected because the supply of land is fixed and cannot react. Hence, the economy operates after the tax exactly as it did before the tax—with no distortions or inefficiencies arising as a result of the land tax." – Paul Samuelson

 

The fair (consumption) tax makes consumers and producers poorer. Land value tax is burdenless after it is put in place … which means it does not make consumers or producers poorer. Switching to land value taxation (like the original U.S. Constitution called for) would remove all tax burdens from the economy, and free trade could finally do what it is suppose to do. Land value tax has no dead-weight losses. Land value tax is the cheapest tax to administer and enforce, and doesn't require personal information.

If you removed all the current tax burdens from the economy then wages would go up and consumer prices would go down. From this point, using a fair tax to fund government would cause a greater than 20% jump in consumer prices, while a land value tax would leave prices at their tax free level. Why doesn't that 20%+ discount sound good to you?

 

The worth of a thing is determined by the value individuals place upon it.
The value of a thing is determined by the worth individuals place upon it.
The cost of a thing is determined by its value if otherwise allocated.
Prices allocate scarce resources that have alternative uses.
Capitalism is an economy controlled by price moves.
An economy is a trade-off. Economics is the study of trade-offs. Our economy is the sum of our trade-offs.
Because all resources are scarce and have alternative uses, there are only trade-offs.
If anything were actually free, it would solve something.
Unfortunately, there are no solutions; there are only trade-offs.

 

[MENTION=13235]geofree[/MENTION] Wait, so you mean to tell me that if Bill Gates made no money then he should cough up half of his net worth and hand it over to the government? What money would the billionaire give Uncle Sam if he made none?

 

Great idea.
I support.

 

No tax for networth under $10, 000.

networth 1 billion must pay $2 millions per year.
That is 0.2%. Or 1/500. Which is very just.

 

About sale/ spending tax.


There is no tax for buying milk.
If you play golf you have to pay $200 - $10, 000 tax per session.

No tax for pull out tooth.
But women have to pay $10, 000 tax to install fake boobs.
Also for a penis enlarge operation men have to pay $35, 000 tax.

 

Of course money can just sit. It is a free country and anyone can hold cash. Now if you want to use a different term for money that is earning nothing that is fine.

And your statement that where there is interest there is growth is incorrect. There is only growth in real terms if the interest rate exceed the rate of inflation.

And any change in the tax code can be claimed to pick winners and losers. the current system picks winners and losers. Just read the Bush tax proposal and it clearly picks winners and losers.

 

The trade off between speculators' low yield options(benefits to the individual who is able to take advantage) and the stability (healthier environment for long term growth), natural inflation inhibiting characteristic is a primary example of the difference between fascism and a constitutional republic.