FairTax Act-Is it a viable solution?

Anyone who wishes to pay more taxes than asked of them is an idiot...yes!

I base this on my belief of minimize government and maximize the economy.

Why does government need more taxes today?? Come on...you should know the answer?? Because government has made horrible decisions, and out of control spending, creating trillion$ in debt and deficits...and now they want you to solve their problems of which giving them more money will only encourage them to spend more money!!!

And finally, does it make any sense to you to take money from people and business and give it to government? If we assume a pile of $500 in cash, and assuming everyone is generally paying their taxes according to tax policy, do you want to keep that $500 or give it to your government? You don't even know where your government will spend that $500? Government might spend it on stuff you hate! For me, I don't want a single dime used to fight needless and senseless wars...so when the wars are 100% stopped, I will consider paying higher taxes if necessary, but not a dime as long as the wars continue...

 

If you are ignorant of where the government spends your taxes then you are not meeting a basic requirement of citizenship under democratic government. You might as well live in a dictatorship.

Government equates to dictatorship in a democracy only for those most ignorant. Since they have no clue what their government is up to anyway it makes little difference to them how it is characterized as long as it appeals to some emotion.

 

Meta has finally asked the right question, and I will be fascinated to read any responses. To assist in the discussion, here is an abbreviated list of the 18 federal government responsibilities as set forth in our Constitution. Read the list and then consider just what the federal government is doing today and see if there is any disconnect.

(1) ...lay and collect taxes, pay debts, provide for the common Defence and general welfare...
(2) ...borrow money...
(3) ...regulate commerce...
(4) ...establish a uniform rule for Naturalization, and a uniform law for Bankruptcy...
(5) ...coin money...
(6) ...punish counterfeiting..
(7) ...establish Post Offices and post roads...
( ...promote science through patents...
(9) ...set up federal courts lower than the Supreme Court...
(10) ...punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas..
(11) ...declare war..
(12) ...raise and support Armies...
(13) ...provide and maintain a Navy...
(14) ...make rules for the regulation of the land/naval forces...
(15) ...call out the militia...
(16) ...organize, arm and discipline the Militia...
(17) ...exercise exclusive legislation over the nations capitol...
(1 ...make laws to accomplish all of the above...

 

To the first question, NO, and yes I can defend my reasoning.

These things were said for a reason, related to the self-sustaining "landed estate" or the rich:

"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 28 Oct. 1785) http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch15s32.html

"But the chief object of this progressive tax (besides the justice of rendering taxes more equal than they are) is, as already stated, to exterpate the overgrown influence arising from the unnatural law of primogeniture, and which is one of the principle sources of corruption at elections." (Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, Everyman's Library, Alfred A. Knopf, 1994, p, 221)

"Several of the most heavy and productive taxes are so contrived, as to give an exemption to this pillar, thus standing in its own defense. The tax upon beer brewed for sale does not affect the aristocracy, who brew their own beer free of this duty." (Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, Everyman's Library, Alfred A. Knopf, 1994, p, 193)

******

In any future where technology reaches the point where those who own the principle means of production produce all the goods with what was the self sustaining "landed estate" prior to the US revolution, the only people paying any sales taxes will be those who do not inherit or own the principle means of production's "landed estate," in essence nobody will be paying for the prebate.

In any future where the rich make income from foreign manufacture, and not enough people have jobs to pay the sales taxes, not enough people will be able to pay enough for the prebate.

The only Fair way to tax consumption is with an impost tax, which the anti-Tea Party for the Fair Tax Act is against, placing the tax upon the rich or foreign manufacture and creating demand for domestic manufacture. And once the "Artificially Intelligent Robotic Principle Means of Production" is reached another tax must provide for the general welfare.

To the second question, I think it is a bad idea.

 

Should be in another topic, but:

Why does that not include email and the Internet?

 

If you wish to write my posts, making up crap, then go ahead but don't expect me to respond after this post!

You don't know what I really think and you never will. What you SHOULD know is what I write. And no where have I written that the government should not be funded!

Idiocy is not completely subjective.

Of course government serves a purpose. It's nice to have local and national security. It's nice to have public education. It's nice to have other necessary social programs. It's great to protect the environment. It's good to have an entity represent US citizens to the rest of the world...

 

FairTax Act-Is it a viable solution?

No.

It's a nice idea...but as it stands, it would be far too easy to circumvent.

A huge black market would (imo) undoubtedly grow were it implemented as is.

 

People are obviously not happy with the current system. The current tax code is lengthy. People complain of loopholes, deductions, etc. People complain about the "effective" tax rates of America's rich. I think that the Fair Tax would make things so much simpler, and ensure that folks are paying their fair share. If you make less, you will spend less. If you make more, you will spend more. Therefore, people with more money will be paying more in tax.

On the flip side, it is hard to see how this system will pan out in reality. It sounds good on paper.

Let's face the fact that we cannot please everyone, no matter what system of taxation is implemented.

 

I've given you my comments on this.

Regarding your opinion of 'overuse of punctuation', exclamation statements can also stem from frustration, wasting time, ignorance, closed-mindedness...exclamation does not need to infer that a person is 'offended'...

 

A fair tax would simply be a tax on consumption, and be bad to economic interests. It would increase the costs of buying everything in the economy, including intermediate goods. The final goods (consumer goods) would thus have an inflated price as a result. This would discourage consumption by lower-income Americans as well, which could have repercussions in the overall economy as a whole. You're basically penalizing people on buying any type of goods.

Additionally, depending on the rate, corporations that expand their operations would be effectively penalized for buying new goods in order to finish the expansion and hire workers.

just stick with a flat tax.

 

There is a cause and effect with all taxation. Increase taxation on gasoline and gasoline consumption goes down. Increase corporate taxation and maybe there will be fewer jobs. Increase taxation on people and consumption will lower. And many politicians/presidents fear these specific taxes will increase too much so they dream up every imaginable place to extract a few more tax dollars. Bottom line is that if we add up ALL THE TAXES, including local and state, that we are paying most would be surprised or shocked!

So when we casually talk about taxes, instead of politicizing everything, and creating class-warfare or corporate war-fare, etc., we really should be looking at the effects of taxation, and design taxation so that the effects allow us to achieve some goals.

For example, what some refer to as 'loopholes' but are really just the current tax code, many of those tax codes were written to achieve a specific effect. This is not complex but since there are many tax and business and people scenarios, there are many codes to control the effects.

If you simply move to a flat tax for example, and eliminate all the 'loopholes' you will be changing the financial picture of many different situations, with the effects possibly being quite negative. What happens to capital depreciation?

So many think taxation is simple and that one rule can fit all situations...but I don't think so...

 

Loopholes, or subsidies, have been shown to encourage waste in certain industries, as well as promote inefficient practices. For example, agricultural subsidies promote the growth of corn for fuel, when it is known that growing corn depletes the soil of nutrition, and that food prices are rising in the world, causing tumult in other countries. Agricultural subsidies also mostly go to a small group of rich farmers or multinational farm corporations. Subsidies in alternative energies have been stricken with allegations of politicized misallocation of funds, like the Solyndra affair with Obama. Government grants to selected companies continuously doesnt encourage innovation.

When i said flat tax, i didnt say remove all subsidies and loopholes. A simple flat tax (between 15-20%) will do.

 

Flat taxes and other similar ideas are no better than the current tax system.

A flat tax or national sales tax or whatever implies that everyone will pay taxes based on their consumption. But the first thing proponents do is create loopholes so that huge portions of the public don't need to pay tax on certain things or everything. Then we're right back to where we are today; a few people paying the lion's share of taxes and a (*)(*)(*)(*) load of people paying very little or nothing...

 

The fair tax proposal disregards economic reality. The fair tax premise is that all economic activity is consumptive so a tax on consumption will logically tax all economic activity equally.

This is not true, not even close to the truth. The vast majority of economic activity is not consumptive but speculative. The amount of money that changes hands in the speculative markets dwarfs the amount that changes hands in the trade of goods and services by orders of magnitude.

A fair tax would exclude speculative economic activity and so exclude the majority of economic activity, and the money of wealthy speculators, from all taxation.

 

The Fair Tax can be done. It is the most researched piece of legislation ever. There are 5 states in the union that derive their taxes by a sales taxes only. If these states can do it, why not the US.

 

Because at 30%, there will be an incredible incentive for a huge underground black market.

 

Does a fair-tax leave in place the existing capital gains tax? If not, then the fair-tax scheme would need to also tax the gains on investments...

 

The fair tax removes almost all, or all taxes on speculative economic activities depending on which fair tax proponent you talk to. Broker fees might be taxed as a service but capital gains would not under any proposed fair tax scenario. Many fair tax proponents do not include services as taxable so even broker fees would not be taxed. In that case speculative market activity would be entirely untaxed.

 

Not really. The businessman will have take all the risk. Why should a business risk going to jail for not paying his taxes in order to save you a buck.

 

Broker's fees are both corporate income and personal income. Both must be taxed...