Fair Tax

[maat55]

[QUOTE]

Interesting discussion folks. Except for the "un-American" comment to someone who spells out an argument for progressive income taxes as opposed to the Fair Tax.

What I find unamerican is when someone who earns less than me, thinks he has a right to a portion of my income. I do not appologize for my statement. I do not recall that mentality being an american mentality.

[cptacek]

Certain individuals flourish and generate more in this society more than they would in others. Therefore it is fair that the higher one's income goes, the more of that is a result of the rewards of the specific society - and thus the higher claim society has on those earnings. Because without a society that rewards those certain skills/traits/etc. - the income would never have materialized.

In your opinion, is there anyone in this country that does not benefit from this society enough to warrant not paying any income taxes? Are you for every income level paying at least something in income taxes, even if the lowest amount is a token (i.e., everyone has to pay $10 no matter what the income)? Are you against someone getting more money "back" than they paid into the system that year?

[jpg7n16]

What I find unamerican is when someone who earns less than me, thinks he has a right to a portion of my income. I do not appologize for my statement. I do not recall that mentality being an american mentality.

Well since that comment was directed at me, I have the right to be offended by it.

Especially since your rationale for the comment is that I have somehow claimed you owe me something personally.

You have personified the income tax in the form of: me. You stopped attacking my argument (or never started really) and are instead attacking me for having a different viewpoint than you. So far you've tried to assert that I'm naive and unAmerican. Yet you say little about how an income tax is any different than a consumption tax.

I have never said that you owe me anything. Or that I have a right to what is yours. Find me a quote where I have said that you owe me personally. You can't.

But I have said - and stand by - that you owe society for the abnormally large income you assert that you have.


I don't know what exactly you do for a living, but whatever it is - it is being rewarded particularly well because you perform your task/skill in this society - America.

If you were a doctor (I believe DisneySteve actually is a doctor, but say you were too) - and you were better than House. I mean you're good - maybe the best. Doctors are rewarded very well in this society. But you must remember that you are not just a doctor, but a doctor in America.

How Much Do Doctors in Other Countries Make? - Economix Blog - NYTimes.com

Accoriding to this New York Times article - doctors in America earn higher salaries (on average) than in any other country worldwide. So if you were still an amazing doctor, but worked in say Mexico - you would make $20k or so.

Now would you be any less of an amazing doctor? No. Would you have worked just as hard? Yes. But that society would not reward you the same as this one does.


But no matter what your actual profession is, there are several societies worldwide that would not pay you as well to do the same quality of job you do here - if you truly are a high wage earner, you should pray to God every night and thank Him for placing you in America at this point in time.

You should also realize that although your high wages are largely due to your personal hard work - they are also due to the society in which you live.



But maybe you won't take my word for it, because I don't make as much money as you, so I'm not as good of a person apparently.

Maybe you should listen to Warren Buffett then - since he makes more than you ever will - and he's apparently on my side on this issue. That the higher the wages, the higher the overall percentage of your income should go towards income tax.

And I'm pretty sure you don't have the right to claim that you make more than him.

Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary - Times Online

Now what to do... people who make much much more than you, and less than you both agree that higher incomes should pay more in taxes. Hmmm. How does your argument hold up now?

Or if incomes don't matter - then why did you bring your's up?

Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner.

Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.”

Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.

[cptacek]

If you were a doctor (I believe DisneySteve actually is a doctor, but say you were too) - and you were better than House. I mean you're good - maybe the best. Doctors are rewarded very well in this society. But you must remember that you are not just a doctor, but a doctor in America.

How Much Do Doctors in Other Countries Make? - Economix Blog - NYTimes.com

Accoriding to this New York Times article - doctors in America earn higher salaries (on average) than in any other country worldwide. So if you were still an amazing doctor, but worked in say Mexico - you would make $20k or so.

Now would you be any less of an amazing doctor? No. Would you have worked just as hard? Yes. But that society would not reward you the same as this one does.

Yay Capitalism!

[cptacek]

Maybe you should listen to Warren Buffett then - since he makes more than you ever will - and he's apparently on my side on this issue. That the higher the wages, the higher the overall percentage of your income should go towards income tax.

And I'm pretty sure you don't have the right to claim that you make more than him.

Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary - Times Online

So why doesn't he put his money where his mouth is and pay more taxes?

[jpg7n16]

In your opinion, is there anyone in this country that does not benefit from this society enough to warrant not paying any income taxes?

In my personal opinion - in terms of economic benefit, yes. That point is at or below the established poverty line.

Are you for every income level paying at least something in income taxes, even if the lowest amount is a token (i.e., everyone has to pay $10 no matter what the income)?

No. "Token" in this case seems to = pointless.

Are you against someone getting more money "back" than they paid into the system that year?

Not necessarily. I feel that society as a whole has a responsibility to look out for the less fortunate members of that society. Preferrably, the less fortunate would be taken care of through various charities.

But don't you want to live in a society where if you lose everything you have, you won't be left to die in the street? That would likely necessitate that you may for a time receive more benefits from the system than you pay in. How could you create a society where no one ever receives more than they pay in?

Or how would you deal with orphans? They need to be taken care of by society somehow - and if a charity isn't there to step in, what should happen? I would hope that society would have some way of stepping up to give them shelter, food, and an education - and they would therefore receive more than they put in, for a time.


(Although in the context of income tax vs fair tax, I don't see how this discussion matters. Both tax systems would be used by society to fund programs for the less fortunate. But I still do not see how taxation of consumption is more fair to society as a whole, than taxation on income.)

[jpg7n16]

Yay Capitalism!

Agreed. And yay capitalistic society!

So why doesn't he put his money where his mouth is and pay more taxes?

Warren Buffett to donate $37 billion (USD) to Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation - Wikinews, the free news source

[cptacek]

Agreed. And yay capitalistic society!


Warren Buffett to donate $37 billion (USD) to Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation - Wikinews, the free news source

That isn't paying more taxes. That is donating to a private charity.

[jpg7n16]

That isn't paying more taxes. That is donating to a private charity.

It is giving back to society. There is a reason why charitable gifts are tax deductible. You'd have to ask him why he gave to a charity and not directly to the gov. That was his decision. I am not him.

But I would guess that he clearly saw the need for more of his wealth to go to benefit society - so he did so. And since he had the freedom to control exactly where that excess went, he decided specifically where he'd like to give it - I see nothing wrong with that.

But if taxes were higher - he'd have no problem paying them.

If you make a lot and choose to donate a portion of that directly to society through some charitable organization - I feel that you should not be taxed on any of that money.

(From what I understand he did not deduct his giving on his income tax)

[cptacek]

Buffet didn't say that people with higher incomes need to give more back to society. That is some construct that you are stuck on. Buffet said people with higher incomes need to pay more taxes. So why doesn't he?

[James cuck]

The fair tax taxes us only on what we choose to spend on new goods or services, not on what we earn. The fair tax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system.

[jpg7n16]

Buffet didn't say that people with higher incomes need to give more back to society. That is some construct that you are stuck on. Buffet said people with higher incomes need to pay more taxes. So why doesn't he?

No clue. You should ask him. Pretty much no one will pay taxes they don't have to. (even if they feel they should)

Why do you buy clothes on sale? If you really like the shirt, why don't you "put your money where your mouth is" and voluntarily give extra money to the store because it's worth more than they are charging?

Why pay when you don't have to and can accomplish your goal by other means?


Let me ask you something then - since you're getting onto a different subject.

Are you against an income tax in favor of consumption tax? Or just against tax in general (like maat55)?


Cause how about this: Buffett's expenses for the year are likely around $250k or less (he's not known for his lavish spending). His total income in the link above was $46 million for the year.

Which under the fair tax system $250k @ 23% would incur a tax liability of about $57,500. (0.125% of his income - yes people that is 1/8th of 1 percent)

Now you're saying that would be fair? He benefits economically from this society to the tune of $46 million - consumes a minute piece of that - and pockets the rest tax free - and it's the "Fair" Tax??


So whatever the inequalities of the current system are - and whatever Warren's reasons for not willfully paying more in taxes this year - how is the fair tax system more fair than a tax on income?


In my view, taxation on income is fairer than taxation on consumption (which is what I created this thread about in the 1st place). Because income is a better indicator of how well you have benefitted economically from society.

[maat55]

[QUOTE=jpg7n16;265013]

Especially since your rationale for the comment is that I have somehow claimed you owe me something personally.

I'm putting what you said in its real content. The income tax and redistribution are personal.

You have personified the income tax in the form of: me. You stopped attacking my argument (or never started really) and are instead attacking me for having a different viewpoint than you. So far you've tried to assert that I'm naive and unAmerican. Yet you say little about how an income tax is any different than a consumption tax.

Taxes are for the purpose of funding government, not punishing success. You assert that higher income earners should pay more, which I agree, but not in the punishing way you propose.

Income tax is just another tax on production that gets passed through the cost of product. I would have no problem with the income tax if it were a flat tax.

I favor the consumption tax because it promotes savings and job growth. IMO, a constitutional government would not need the massive taxation it inflicts on society today.

I have never said that you owe me anything. Or that I have a right to what is yours. Find me a quote where I have said that you owe me personally. You can't.

This is a cop out. When you take money from one and give(or excuse him from paying a share of the services) it to another that is forced redistribution.

But I have said - and stand by - that you owe society for the abnormally large income you assert that you have.

I never asserted my income in any way. I have mentioned on this forum before that I am in the median income of the country. And, at any income, I should pay some portion of tax.

I don't know what exactly you do for a living, but whatever it is - it is being rewarded particularly well because you perform your task/skill in this society - America.

I am a furniture builder and reupholsterer. My clientele are of high income and the rich, but I in no way feel they owe me anything.

If you were a doctor (I believe DisneySteve actually is a doctor, but say you were too) - and you were better than House. I mean you're good - maybe the best. Doctors are rewarded very well in this society. But you must remember that you are not just a doctor, but a doctor in America.

Have you not noticed why this country is the richest, from top to bottom, on earth. It is our free market system. The market, not you, determines wages and prices. Doctors earn more for two reasons, they have highly needed experience and the government distorts the cost of healthcare through social programs.

Accoriding to this New York Times article - doctors in America earn higher salaries (on average) than in any other country worldwide. So if you were still an amazing doctor, but worked in say Mexico - you would make $20k or so.

Now would you be any less of an amazing doctor? No. Would you have worked just as hard? Yes. But that society would not reward you the same as this one does.

I'm sure their furniture builders and ditch diggers earn less as well, but that is there problem, due to their market system.

But no matter what your actual profession is, there are several societies worldwide that would not pay you as well to do the same quality of job you do here - if you truly are a high wage earner, you should pray to God every night and thank Him for placing you in America at this point in time.

And I have no desire to live there or be held back there.

You should also realize that although your high wages are largely due to your personal hard work - they are also due to the society in which you live.

They are due to free market capitalism.

But maybe you won't take my word for it, because I don't make as much money as you, so I'm not as good of a person apparently.

Why do assume I make some large amount of money, I do not, but I do appreciate the freedoms and opportunities of this country. You have every opportunity to succeed as well. This countries system is designed to create more welath not share a certain amount of wealth. The rich are not taking anything that is not freely given to them. And, I make decent money because I am motivated to do so, in this system.

Maybe you should listen to Warren Buffett then - since he makes more than you ever will - and he's apparently on my side on this issue. That the higher the wages, the higher the overall percentage of your income should go towards income tax.

Now what to do... people who make much much more than you, and less than you both agree that higher incomes should pay more in taxes. Hmmm. How does your argument hold up now?

I agree, the richer should pay more tax, but not at a higher rate.

Or if incomes don't matter - then why did you bring your's up?

Other than this post, I don't recall saying anything about my income. No matter how much I earn, my opinion of fairness will be the same.

I promote the Fair Tax because it liberates the individual from the IRS. It collects taxes in a fair manner, eliminates a massive amount of unnecessary bean counting and it promotes investment and jobs in this country instead of running them off.

[jIM_Ohio]

If society takes credit for such a high delta in wages, we might as well all pay 50% to society in forms of chariable giving or taxes and let the charities and government distribute.

Or we can be capitalists and let the weak die out. If only the strong survive, then stop using society and government to prop up the weak.

[jpg7n16]

I'm putting what you said in its real content. The income tax and redistribution are personal.

No you're putting it in your own personally perceived context. I have never intended or attempted to imply that you owe me personally something. You made that up in your mind.

Taxes are for the purpose of funding government, not punishing success. You assert that higher income earners should pay more, which I agree, but not in the punishing way you propose.

Again, you are arguing against tax in general - which is not the purpose of this thread.

Taking your agrument against taxation on consumption: why should I be punished for having expensive taste? why should I be punished for buying new instead of used? why punish the people of society for purchasing the goods they need to survive? why punish customers for buying in America when they could buy the same good in another nation for 23-30% less?

But taxation isn't punishment.

Tylenol costs more than the generic store brand pain reliever. Are you being punished for buying Tylenol?

Income tax is just another tax on production that gets passed through the cost of product. I would have no problem with the income tax if it were a flat tax.

I favor the consumption tax because it promotes savings and job growth. IMO, a constitutional government would not need the massive taxation it inflicts on society today.

Now I understand a flat income tax - I just personally think it's not as appropriate as a progressive tax structure. It would be better than a flat consumption tax though.

The problem with "promoting savings" is that it only promotes savings for those whose income is high enough to save. Low incomes have little room for savings under a consumption based system and high incomes have ample room for savings. So in my view - that means it promotes savings for high income earners.

The problem with "job growth" is that sales level will fall, making revenue fall, making employers need to cut back. If we all start getting a 23% tax on all new sales - all car factory employees better start looking for jobs. I would never buy a new car when I could get a used one for at least 23% cheaper. The cars would pile up in dealerships. Dealers would lose money, salesmen would lose money, the factories that built those new cars would lose money - and layoffs would begin.

This is a cop out. When you take money from one and give(or excuse him from paying a share of the services) it to another that is forced redistribution.

And the fair tax doesn't take from you and give to another? This is just another argument against taxation in general.

I never asserted my income in any way. I have mentioned on this forum before that I am in the median income of the country. And, at any income, I should pay some portion of tax.

Remeber that time when you said: "What I find unamerican is when someone who earns less than me, thinks he has a right to a portion of my income."

That asserts that your income is higher than someone elses. Maybe not as high as you think it should be, but high enough to criticize the people with incomes below you.

I am a furniture builder and reupholsterer. My clientele are of high income and the rich, but I in no way feel they owe me anything.

Well not just that - you are a furniture builder and reupholsterer, in America. Your profession is uniquely rewarded here in this society because of the availability of clientele like you serve, and the market system that allows you to charge whatever it is that you charge. Thus your income has been amplified by this society more than it would have been in another. Go to the Congo and see how much you'll get paid to do just as good of a job over there.

Now they don't owe you anything personally just like you don't owe me anything personally - but I feel that we all have a debt to society for the abnormally large incomes it allows us to recieve.

Have you not noticed why this country is the richest, from top to bottom, on earth. It is our free market system. The market, not you, determines wages and prices. Doctors earn more for two reasons, they have highly needed experience and the government distorts the cost of healthcare through social programs.

I'm sure their furniture builders and ditch diggers earn less as well, but that is there problem, due to their market system.

That's exactly what I'm saying. It is a combination of hard work and a great society that leads to high incomes. The same hard work in a different society would not have been rewarded to the same degree. And when society helps your income be magnified, a larger percent of that increase is due to the society you live in.

Therefore as the income goes higher, I also feel that the percentage of that income that goes towards taxes should go higher.

They are due to free market capitalism.

Which is a characteristic of the society in which you live. So thanks for agreeing with me.

Why do assume I make some large amount of money, I do not, but I do appreciate the freedoms and opportunities of this country. You have every opportunity to succeed as well. This countries system is designed to create more welath not share a certain amount of wealth. The rich are not taking anything that is not freely given to them. And, I make decent money because I am motivated to do so, in this system.

Cause when you made your jerkish statement, you asserted that you made more than me.

I agree, the richer should pay more tax, but not at a higher rate.

And there we disagree.

I promote the Fair Tax because it liberates the individual from the IRS. It collects taxes in a fair manner, eliminates a massive amount of unnecessary bean counting and it promotes investment and jobs in this country instead of running them off.

I disagree on virtually every point there.

Who will be the one who determines which individuals have paid less than 2 times the poverty limit? (which the fair tax site says will be taxed at a lower rate of 11.5%) Who will monitor just how much you've spent this year? How will they enforce the "family" stipend? What if people just stop getting married in order to collect 2 family stipends and double the amount of poverty level spending they can have? What if parents gift cash to their children and tell them to buy things for themselves in order to claim that each member of the family is their own family so 4 or 5 can collect their own stipend?

Some regulatory agency will have to oversee all of that.

Or did you think that no one would try and cheat the fair tax system??

I believe a tax on income is a fairer than a tax on consumption. The beans still have to get counted. (How much revenue did we get from this division? Did they properly charge the tax at the counter? Were the sale of new goods sold in the system as used?) It's not like the fair tax system magically eliminates the need to verify revenues and the associated taxes.

If you run off the customers by charging too much, you also run off the jobs.


I swear if the fair tax passes, I'm going to buy long term put options on the entire automotive sector.