FairTax

[HuskyCaucasian]

I just did a quick calculation...

Based on $60,000 a year income (pre-taxes) you pay $8,218 in federal taxes.

So, you would need to spend the equivalent of $27,393.34 today (27,393.34 x 30% sales tax = $8,218.00)

Edited January 10, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[southsider2k5]

The Great Depression was not caused by cuts in government spending. Certainly, once the disaster occurred that resulted in it took hold, then the New Deal used a lot of deficit spending to revive the economy. That sort of drastic action was needed at the time. But government spending levels were not a causation.

 

I would be open to conditions on the balanced budget amendment... 3/4 super-majority to override, or a declaration of War (and only applicable to that spending), for example. You always want to have that last resort option available. But that is what it should be.

 

And there are multiple cycles to look at here. If the government can consistently keep and spend more money, it has more reserves to tackle economic issues. Also, that larger flow of services and jobs to the public would help stave off future recessions or soften them. No doubt this sort of thing would need to be implemented in phases over a long period, but the end result is very positive, in my view.

 

I purposely didn't say that government spending caused the great depression. It added to the problems, just like it would here. The big villians that really kicked the GD into a depression was the banks only because weren't led by the Federal Reserve at the time, and their actions took tons of cash out of the system, which eventually collapsed government tax receipts.

[jasonxctf]

I just did a quick calculation...

Based on $60,000 a year income (pre-taxes) you pay $8,218 in federal taxes.

So, you would need to spend the equivalent of $6321.54 today (6321.54 x 30% sales tax = $8218.00)

 

math error... if you pay $8,218 in taxes under the current system, under the 30% sales tax system would would have to buy $27,393 worth of items. ($27,393 x .30= $8,218)

[jasonxctf]

He would be taxed roughly $7,336,103 based on the current system.

So, he would need to spend the equivalent of $5,643,156 today (5,643,156 x 30% sales tax = $7,336,102.80)

 

math error.

 

if he pays $7,336,103 under the system today, they would have to buy $24,453,676 worth of items to equal the same amount. ($24,453,676 x .30= $7,336,103)

[HuskyCaucasian]

math error... if you pay $8,218 in taxes under the current system, under the 30% sales tax system would would have to buy $27,393 worth of items. ($27,393 x .30= $8,218)

OMG! wow, I'm an idiot. Had it all out on paper and used a wrong number. OOPS! I'll correct that.

[southsider2k5]

He would be taxed roughly $7,336,103 based on the current system.

So, he would need to spend the equivalent of $5,643,156 today (5,643,156 x 30% sales tax = $7,336,102.80)

 

In the sales tax system, if he earns $20 million and only spends $1 million, the guy is only taxes on $1,000,000. The income tax system taxes the full amount of his earnings. That is the exact reason you hear rich candidates advocating this system. By contrast someone who now earns and spends $20k in a year, doesn't pay any income taxes and probably gets a refund from things like the earned income tax credit and the like. Under a "fair tax" they are taxed on that full $20k. Even if you put in a system that gives them an exemption somehow, they still lose things like the EITC. I have posted this statistic over and over again, but the bottom two quintiles of taxpayers actually not only pay no net taxes, but they actually make a profit off of the current tax system. That is all gone under a "fair tax" It is the richest taxpayers that would benefit from this type of system.

[Texsox]

You also have to ask yourself who wants this new system and why? Obviously they probably want to pay less, which means someone has to pay more.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Ok, after seeing the numbers on paper, I am really against this. It doesn't add up. People in a lower tax bracket have to pay more while the rich pay less.

You could argue trickle down economics, but it doesn't work with corporate greed.

[Rex Kickass]

The reason this doesn't work is because the working poor spend a far greater percentage of their income on things that would be taxable. The wealthier people don't have to. A gallon of milk is 3.50 if you make 10,000 or 10,000,000 a year. Rarely is the millionaire going to be drinking that much more milk because he can.

[kapkomet]

Or you could simply vote for Ron Paul and not have ANY federal income taxes whatsoever, along with getting rid of the run-away inflation that is brought on by the federal government - which is a 'hidden' tax in its own. Plus, gasoline would cost substantially less as there would be no federal taxes on it...but, I suppose have a balanced budget is just crazy. The really weird thing - no taxes, and a balanced budget are VERY easy to achieve & Ron Paul is the only guy who actually WANTS that done.

You are offically crazy when it comes to political issues. I love your baseball knowledge, but not your political ones.

 

Let's just get rid of 100% of our government altogether. Even Ron Paul isn't THAT stupid. I'll leave it at that.

[Balta1701]

Let's just get rid of 100% of our government altogether.

And...according to Ron Paul's early 90's news letters...black people too. We better, because otherwise "the animals are coming."

[EvilMonkey]

And...according to Ron Paul's early 90's news letters...black people too. We better, because otherwise "the animals are coming."

I had to ask where they were............ Sorry guys.

[Balta1701]

I had to ask where they were............ Sorry guys.

Eh, you're forgiven.

[sox4lifeinPA]

thank you. This is a tax increase on the non-voting poor, to benefit the middle class.

 

 

so they probably won't know about it anyway?

 

 

when do we start?

[sox4lifeinPA]

And...according to Ron Paul's early 90's news letters...black people too. We better, because otherwise "the animals are coming."

 

 

The New Republic hasn't had ANY problems with journalism in the past....

[southsider2k5]

Or you could simply vote for Ron Paul and not have ANY federal income taxes whatsoever, along with getting rid of the run-away inflation that is brought on by the federal government - which is a 'hidden' tax in its own. Plus, gasoline would cost substantially less as there would be no federal taxes on it...but, I suppose have a balanced budget is just crazy. The really weird thing - no taxes, and a balanced budget are VERY easy to achieve & Ron Paul is the only guy who actually WANTS that done.

 

And he gives you quarters when you lose a tooth!

[Texsox]

And he gives you quarters when you lose a tooth!

[NorthSideSox72]

The reason this doesn't work is because the working poor spend a far greater percentage of their income on things that would be taxable. The wealthier people don't have to. A gallon of milk is 3.50 if you make 10,000 or 10,000,000 a year. Rarely is the millionaire going to be drinking that much more milk because he can.

Clearly any system relying heavily on sales tax needs to have categorized taxation. Necessities (store-bought food, clothing, utilities) would have minimal or no taxation.

 

[southsider2k5]

The reason I say it - is because in the original Constitution - it was not permitted by the Federal Government to tax its' citizens. And it was simply amended and can be amended back, again. Its not "out of the question" to do. Simply cutting back on many of the unneccessary spending would allow it to happen. There doesn't need to be a Department of Education, etc. The biggest hinderance of a very quality education IS the Dept. of Education. The Dept. of Education is a government run program & what does the government want out of its' citizens? Exactly what (how they teach) you in school - "stay in single file line, follow the person in front of you, don't speak out of turn, don't think far outside the box from what we tell you to know etc. etc." Most (and note, I didn't say all - I said most) government run programs are histerically inefficient. So why do we allow them to control everything? It is not in the Constitution saying they can create all these programs to control its' citizens. Why should we provide healthcare to every person? What if I don't want healthcare - why do I still need to be taxed for it? Why should I support the fat slob down the street who smokes cigarettes all day and will need all the medical care in the world? Socialized programs are inefficient by nature. Inefficiency is what has caused many of the problems in the country we face today. I don't see why this is not realized by more? I guess the government really has created some great factory workers who like to follow each other's lead and not realize the intelligence of those who can think outside the box. And I didn't even realize that following the Constitution's guidelines was even thinking outside the box - but apparently one of the many socialized programs the government has forced upon everyone has truly washed out many. I guess that explains why our education level has dropped off the map in the last few decades.

 

The great thing about our constitution is that it is a living document, and within that document lies the ability to amend it. It was the framers of the constitutions intent to allow the constitution to be updated as needed, so that it did not become outdated and impotent like the Articles of Confederation had done in a very short amount of time. Honoring the amendments to our constitution IS following the constitutions guidelines.

 

I also have a big problem with your leap of faith from taxation to government programs. There is a big difference from believing that the government can tax (or not), and not agreeing with the socialist welfare state that we are on the road to becoming. Your view of the consitution taken seemingly from 1789's eyes does not reflect that fact that we aren't just 13 states anymore, and we have a population of over 300,000,000 people. Demands on a goverment change when you go from being the size of Europe to the 3rd biggest country in size on the planet earth. Even a simple defense force, which is one of the functions of the constitution, would require taxation to pay for. Not to mention some of the other original missions laid out by our constitutional framers, that would still need to be undertaken by the government, such as interstate commerce protections and the court systems. The 18th century is gone, you couldn't even pay for the minimal stuff with tariffs and the like.

 

Don't get me wrong, there is a lot of validity to what Ron Paul has to say. The problem is he has taken lots of his positions to unrealistic extremes. We do need to cut federal government and social welfare back. But getting rid of the income tax is just foolish. It can't be done.

 

Then again judging by Paul's newsletters, he is probably looking to get rid of those pesky 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments...

[Soxy]

thank you. This is a tax increase on the non-voting poor, to benefit the middle class.

I agree. No. No. No. I don't know why people think this would be an awesome idea.

[Balta1701]

I agree. No. No. No. I don't know why people think this would be an awesome idea.

Because it benefits the people with a lot of money. And the people with a lot of money are the ones with the biggest voices in this country.

[kapkomet]

Because it benefits the people with a lot of money. And the people with a lot of money are the ones with the biggest voices in this country.

I got news for you. Most rich people understand that this is a bad idea.

[Balta1701]

I got news for you. Most rich people understand that this is a bad idea.

Only the ones with a conscience.

[southsider2k5]

I got news for you. Most rich people understand that this is a bad idea.

 

I know this would be a net gain for the economy as a whole, but it would kill people who need their money the most.

[NorthSideSox72]

Only the ones with a conscience.

OK now hold on a second here. I personally believe that you can get rid of the income tax, and reduce the IRS down to a small fraction its size, and still have a "fair" tax for all income brackets. I like to think I also have a conscience.