FairTax

[YASNY]

Everyday speeding on the expressway

 

That, my friend, is the American way. That's acceptable in this country ... within reason.

[Texsox]

I have more respect for someone who slips into this country, illegally, and works hard to provide for his family and does not break any other laws than someone who legally sits on his ass and waits for the government check to arrive. I believe that working hard is closer to the American way than legally collecting a public aid check.

[YASNY]

I have more respect for someone who slips into this country, illegally, and works hard to provide for his family and does not break any other laws than someone who legally sits on his ass and waits for the government check to arrive. I believe that working hard is closer to the American way than legally collecting a public aid check.

 

Sadly, that is less true than it used to be.

[kapkomet]

I have more respect for someone who slips into this country, illegally, and works hard to provide for his family and does not break any other laws than someone who legally sits on his ass and waits for the government check to arrive. I believe that working hard is closer to the American way than legally collecting a public aid check.

Wow, there's a nice thought.

 

That's pretty profound, actually...

[YASNY]

There's them damn entitlements rearing their ugly heads again.

[Texsox]

There's them damn entitlements rearing their ugly heads again.

 

Yep, the single biggest problem, bigger than illegal immigrants. I'm not talking about the investment kind of stuff like student financial aid, but the feed someone for a day kind of stuff. No easy answers, but continuing on the path we have found ourselves is not working. Unless we just consider it economic recovery, pumping more money into the economy. Then I guess it doesn't matter what it is spent on as long as it is spent.

[3 BeWareTheNewSox 5]

Wouldn't a change hurt a lot of jobs too? Don't know how big an impact it would be, but it seems like there's a lot of positions dedicated to helping others file taxes or advising on business decisions?

[StrangeSox]

Wouldn't a change hurt a lot of jobs too? Don't know how big an impact it would be, but it seems like there's a lot of positions dedicated to helping others file taxes or advising on business decisions?

 

There are, probably millions. But a rough transition period isn't a good reason to stick with a broken system. Besides, all that means is that we have millions of bright people putting all their efforts into analyzing the tax code and filing returns. Waste of resources, imo.

[Texsox]

No matter what system we have, there will be many people making certain all the money is paid to the federal government. Someone will have to analyze companies books to be certain they have paid all taxes due. Imagine now the mom and pop stores that will have 30X the amount of taxes to pay. And without one check and balance of individuals submitting their returns, what check would be in place that every business accurately reported their sales.

[rowand's rowdies]

If there was no IRS and income tax, the income of the federal government would be at the year 2000 levels. If we cut our spending on frivolus spending such as, I dont know, building an empire or the department of education, we should easily cut back to that. Imagine if you had not just a small tax rebate check, but ALL of your federal income tax back. The economy would be fixed THE NEXT DAY.

Who understands this? RON PAUL. Check him out.

[Rex Kickass]

Funny how nobody seems to mention the human cost in this. We all talk about government bloat and all that, but how do you think the economy would handle suddenly having to absorb hundreds of thousands of jobless people? Everybody seems to think that this wouldn't have an effect on the economy.

[NorthSideSox72]

Funny how nobody seems to mention the human cost in this. We all talk about government bloat and all that, but how do you think the economy would handle suddenly having to absorb hundreds of thousands of jobless people? Everybody seems to think that this wouldn't have an effect on the economy.

The theory goes that if you have lower taxes, more money in people's pockets, they will spend more. Spending more means creating business growth, and that means jobs. The idea would be a shift of the jobs from public to private sector.

 

But you are certainly correct that it would cause significant tremors in the short run. Any plan to transition to something like this needs to take that into account.

 

[southsider2k5]

Funny how nobody seems to mention the human cost in this. We all talk about government bloat and all that, but how do you think the economy would handle suddenly having to absorb hundreds of thousands of jobless people? Everybody seems to think that this wouldn't have an effect on the economy.

 

In all most all cases, the private sector creates and maintains more productive jobs for the amount of money spent. Instead of having 3 people to do 1 job, one person does it, and the savings get spent elsewhere, instead of for duplicity. Governments are a case study in waste, because there is no motivation to do anything better.

[Rex Kickass]

That's great. What do you then do with the hundreds of thousands of people that make up your human waste?

 

If you dismantle the IRS, and basically force a grand shrinking of the federal government, there are suddenly hundreds of thousands of newly unemployed. What do you do with them?

[kapkomet]

That's great. What do you then do with the hundreds of thousands of people that make up your human waste?

 

If you dismantle the IRS, and basically force a grand shrinking of the federal government, there are suddenly hundreds of thousands of newly unemployed. What do you do with them?

Rex, stop asking all these meaningful posts. You're letting the facts get in the way of a good story.

 

[StrangeSox]

That's great. What do you then do with the hundreds of thousands of people that make up your human waste?

 

If you dismantle the IRS, and basically force a grand shrinking of the federal government, there are suddenly hundreds of thousands of newly unemployed. What do you do with them?

Re-educate and re-employee. Right now, these people are wasted resources. If they weren't spending their lives shuffling tax forms, they could be doing something else productive.

Edited January 27, 2008 by StrangeSox

[Rex Kickass]

But who absorbs them? How do we suddenly handle the shock of hundreds of thousands of people without work? Oh no problem, the state handles Unemployment Insurance. All these mandates that the Federal government requires of individual states... wouldn't those end up unfunded? Wouldn't that basically mean a higher state income tax rate?

[NorthSideSox72]

But who absorbs them? How do we suddenly handle the shock of hundreds of thousands of people without work? Oh no problem, the state handles Unemployment Insurance. All these mandates that the Federal government requires of individual states... wouldn't those end up unfunded? Wouldn't that basically mean a higher state income tax rate?

The suddenness is the real problem. It needs to be a gradual process, not a big bang.

 

[StrangeSox]

But who absorbs them? How do we suddenly handle the shock of hundreds of thousands of people without work? Oh no problem, the state handles Unemployment Insurance. All these mandates that the Federal government requires of individual states... wouldn't those end up unfunded? Wouldn't that basically mean a higher state income tax rate?

The system would definitely need to be phased out, and it wouldn't be a painless process.

[Rex Kickass]

So you advocate a phased reduction of workforce? Or do you advocate a phased elimination of safety net programs?

[NorthSideSox72]

So you advocate a phased reduction of workforce? Or do you advocate a phased elimination of safety net programs?

I advocate a phased move of (some) jobs from the public payroll to the private workforce.

 

[StrangeSox]

I advocate a phased move of (some) jobs from the public payroll to the private workforce.

What he said.

[Rex Kickass]

That's a great idea. If we could clearly define where those people go and how many jobs. The problem with these plans is that they're so complicated. The reason a lot of this "reinventing government" stuff comes with so many strings is because it affects so many people so personally, in a way that Angry Joe Voter might not realize.

 

Because when you play with the scope of the federal government, especially when it comes to reducing and eliminating departments, you're putting the careers of thousands and thousands of people on the line. This doesn't mean that reducing the scope of government isn't a good idea, it just means that it's a complicated one and the answer is a lot less clear than a (not so)"Fair Tax" initiative.

[NorthSideSox72]

That's a great idea. If we could clearly define where those people go and how many jobs. The problem with these plans is that they're so complicated. The reason a lot of this "reinventing government" stuff comes with so many strings is because it affects so many people so personally, in a way that Angry Joe Voter might not realize.

 

Because when you play with the scope of the federal government, especially when it comes to reducing and eliminating departments, you're putting the careers of thousands and thousands of people on the line. This doesn't mean that reducing the scope of government isn't a good idea, it just means that it's a complicated one and the answer is a lot less clear than a (not so)"Fair Tax" initiative.

There are some really good ways to move that direction though. For example, government agencies that are just ridiculously inefficient, you outsource their work with some contractual obligations for current staff over a specified period. Or, you use some of the saved money for tax incentives to businesses to encourage hiring. Or, you use some of those monies for education and training.

 

I am not saying it would be easy, nor am I saying it would be easy to market politcally (in fact it would be very very difficult). But I am saying its something that would benefit everyone if done properly.

 

[southsider2k5]

But who absorbs them? How do we suddenly handle the shock of hundreds of thousands of people without work? Oh no problem, the state handles Unemployment Insurance. All these mandates that the Federal government requires of individual states... wouldn't those end up unfunded? Wouldn't that basically mean a higher state income tax rate?

 

The reduction of waste will more than make up for the jobs lost. The private sector creates many more jobs, and it creates them smartly.