I've been thinking about this for a bit - I'm in the middle of the desert, so I have lots of thinking time - and have come to the conclusion that the only fair tax system is one based on consumption. The current system is all about penalizing you for working hard and saving. You should be taxed on what you consume, with the exception of necessary items like raw vegetables, bread, etc - basically food that isn't processed much more than being canned. Stuff like potato chips, cheese whiz, etc would be taxed, but at a lower rate than the national sales tax. I'd even be in favor of doing things like NC does - one weekend a year, everything you buy is tax free to support going back to school. Low income people would feel much less of a pinch, if they planned properly. They would also have an incentive to eat healthier, which would reduce the obesity problem. Congress could stop bitching about not getting taxes from online purchases because everyone would pay the national rate on these items. States would still apply their tax rate on top of the federal one - it'd be the same as we currently have with gasoline. I don't know what the tax rate would be - though I know the government collected $967 billion in income tax last year, I can't find how much we spent buying stuff.

HI Neal Boortz called. He wants you to join the cause. I actually think the fair tax is a good idea. My only concern is what does it do to property taxes. Woudl my wife be out of a job because property tax isnt collected anymore. She works for a law firm that deals in that. I am guessing we would still have it though since thats what pays for the local government.

Just looked at my leave and earning statement - nope, no property tax on it. I'm talking strictly federal income tax. Not MC, not SS, not state taxes. The first two are out right theft. Oh wait, of course, yes, it will all be returned to me when I reach age 65. Or will it be 85 by then? Can't even escape those by hanging out in war zones.

We will all be lucky if our Social Security is even there when we reach the age to receive it.

I'd support a National Retail Sales tax on a couple of conditions.

It's the same for EVERYONE! No special interests or various levels of taxation.

And not any of the following can be taxable:
1) Housing
2) Medical
3) Food

These are the 3 Biggies that everyone needs and most people can least afford if they are on a tight budget, they won't buy what they won't need unless they are irresponsible and well you can't legistlate that.

State level however will always be up to locals, here it's 8.1% Sales and whatever they want to charge for Property. When they need more money, instead of passing a new tax, etc. they just tell us our houses are worth more and collect.

Good luck on this one, but people are pretty status quo and there'll be a lot of accountants, etc. out of business if something like this passed.

Even a Flat tax has its benefits, however I know they will have a multiple tier of Flat tax based on income, which is not different from the current income based tax.

The Fair Tax System has been talked about for many years. When someone just takes a quick glimpse at the premise, it sounds like a great system and method of taxation. It seems designed as an emotional impulse issue. On the surface it sounds "fair". When you step back and take a real good look at it, you will see that it is wrought with so many numerous problems and if instituted will create many more problems.

Let's look at some of what it would do.....

Some say the Fair Tax will eliminate a need for the the IRS (Which really cannot and won't be done without a constitutional amendment to repeal the 16th amendment - which will not happen). If that were true, then the benefits in the tax code will also disappear entirely.

-- A consumption tax will eliminate filing tax returns. At least for much of the population. That means there will be no more deductions. No deductions for having more children. No homeowners deductions. No charitable deductions.

Many people would not be able to afford a home if it were not for the benefits of the tax deductions. The Fair Tax would have a negative affect on homeownership and the housing market which is a big chunk of GDP.

Many people are helped by the tax deduction for dependent children. Under Fair Tax, those people would be hurt a little more because more children means more consumption taxes.

Much charitable giving in this country would largely dry up if it were not tax deductible.

-- The Fair Tax is being talked about as anywhere between a 23% to 30% tax on all consumer goods in this country. It's proponents claim it would be a "revenue neutral" system. That means it would bring in the same or more taxation to the government. That claim is highly specious and doesn't seem very well thought out.

The whole concept is based largely on a pile of assumptions. You know what happens when you assume.

The concept assumes that the price of goods will decrease by a relative factor in relation to the increase of the consumption tax. That is a dangerous assumption. Since personal income taxes are the largest source of revenue for the federal government, it is false to assume that the price of goods manufactured by corporations (who are not the largest source of tax revenue) ... would be decreased very much. Certainly no where near a 23% to 30% decrease in the price of goods.

Fair Tax proponents make the claim that the tax increase on consumption would replace already embedded taxes in the price of goods. An extremely specious assumption that none of them have explained to any satisfaction. They explain just enough for an emotional response in some people.

-- What happens to poor people? They currently do not pay any federal income taxes. Under the Fair Tax they would be required to pay this large increase in the cost of whatever they consume.

-- This Fair Tax concept would require every single retail and wholesale business to be agents of the government. They would be turned into tax collectors. Retailers are currently tax collectors for state and local governments. This will require a federal bureaucracy to oversee and collect this "national sales tax". The Fair Tax people don't talk about who or what bureaucracy will be doing this massive oversight into local and state retail business.

The Fair Tax sounds like an increase of the federal government and federal power. Something of which we do not need, nor never need.

-- The Fair tax does not eliminate any local taxes. All property taxes will still be there. All state income taxes will still be there. All local sales taxes will still be there.

-- The Fair Tax will be a sales tax on top of what is paid for local sales taxes. Possibly bringing the consumption tax up to 35% or much higher in some areas of the country depending on the Fair Tax rate and local sales tax rates.

The Fair Tax makes no consideration based on what you pay the local and state governments in any form of taxation. Therefore it cannot be "fair" to many citizens across many states with various and differing levels and forms of taxation.

-- Is this Fair Tax proposal constitutional?

-- The Fair Tax would likely create a large "black market" for almost every possible retail good that is sold. That means government would have to increase law enforcement capacity to fight that emerging black market that is created to avoid government consumption taxes.

-- The Fair Tax still keeps in place 'withholding taxes' such as those for FICA and Medicare. That's still a good chunk of a paycheck.

Without the complete repeal of the 16th Amendment prior to any enaction of a "Fair Tax" national sales tax..... Is there anyone who is so naive to think that the government wouldn't enact a Fair Tax consumption based taxation system and then add on top of that income taxes.

I think too many people trust the government too much with their wallets.

We have current presidential candidates talking about trillions of dollars in new federal government entitlement systems and very few idiots in the public are asking about the cost. They are are just smiling and thinking it sounds nice.

-- It is naive and childish for anyone to think that politicians and the government are ever going to completely remove their ability to raise taxes in their various forms and the power that holds over the American public by radically removing the current federal tax code.

Taxation means power over the people. It means government power and control. The politicians are not going to abandon that power. Especially not when many politicians are talking pure socialism and socialistic government programs these days. It's just not going to happen.

These Fair Tax people are going to wind up burdening the public with nothing but more taxation and a new national sales tax on top of every other tax we currently have.

There are many problems with the current US Tax Code. There is no doubt it needs reform. This Fair Tax issue is complete bullshit unless the 16th Amendment is repealed first. Without it, the Fair Tax does nothing but give government vastly increased control and a far greater ability to take your money.

It's a bullshit pipe dream.

I thought it was simple until you post up NYMM.

You buy something you don't need you pay tax for it. Consumption of the Rich.

You need it, you pay no tax for it. Consumption of the Froogle or Poor.

Sure the Pipedream as you put it, is far fetched, but can be done and without drastic imacts to the people, at least the poor who really are poor and not just living that way to get Federal/State and local assistance. There would have to be a 2/3rds majority to repeal the IRS and institute this "Fair Tax" as you put it.

I guess as you've put it in other arguments, that if the Majority aren't for it, it won't happen. I guess we'll see. I've been hoping for something to change for about 18 years.

With Cut and Run as well as 9/11 and contrail conspiracy wackos, I hardly think there could be enough focus in the political landscape to even consider the notion.

Happy Labor Day, at least I didn't have to pay taxes today, wait, I bought two couches and 3 stools as well as having the day paid by my work, so in effect I still have the same old taxes waiting for me on my next check. :rolleyes:

Dude, you have way too much time to hammer out that reply. If you would have read my earlier post, I made it as simple as I could.

Tax what you don't need and don't tax the basic 3 essentials that a human needs to prosper, Food, Medical and Housing. Everything else is subject, ie. VCR, DVD, SUV, PC, Etc.

Sounds simple to me and no it is not as you put it, an emotional response. :rolleyes: What's emotional is your bantering about people being full of Shit!

I see sales tax, property tax, vehicle registration, inheritance taxes, etc. as all being unconstitutional. You're paying additional taxes with money you've already been taxed on - double taxation.

The current system is far too complicataed to pull up and do something different. Different programs (schools, for instance) are supported by different taxes. Vehicle registration taxes go towards highways in some cases. Property taxes typically support local school districts. Basically, our politicians have had 150 years to dream up new ways of taxing the citizens of this country. The taxation issue, you'll recall, was the principle cause of the revolutionary war that gained our independence from Britain.

Progressive income taxes aren't fair in general - they hit those who can afford it and give those who can't a free ride. Many of those who can't are also those who won't. In the case of the latter, it's complete bullshit, since they're also the ones most likely to be milking government welfare programs for which we finance.

Flat income taxes aren't much better, as those who make more still pay more, however it is a fair share basis, and that makes it inherently better, but still flawed.

Deductions for having kids is stupid. My wife has kids (from before we were married), and while we've benefitted from that clause, I fundamentally disagree with the concept. The people you're encouraging to have more kids are the ones who probably can't support them.

Bottom line is there's no system that's completely fair for everyone. I like the concept of the sales tax, but to NYMM's point, to make it truly fair, you need to dump all these other taxes at the state and local level, which will likely never happen from a reality standpoint.

Best thing we can do is keep a good balance of politicians in office who are interested in keeping taxes as low as possible. Those who recognize that our economy grows when its citizens have more money in our pocket will continue to get my vote.

The Fair Tax, as brought out by Neal Bortz and Al Lindner, is pretty comprehensive. I havent read the book yet but I went to one of the seminars they sponsored. According to them, ALL taxes would be eliminated other than the 23% sales tax. That would be difficult to pull off. A national sales tax would be the only true constitutional tax. Tax what you spend, not what you make.

I would not mind a consumption based tax. If we don't try something different, then how do we find out what works?

No kids.
No house.
Not blind.
Not disabled.
Filing taxes as 'single.'

Spending days in the mountains or traveling across the country is the best vacation I can ever ask for. I don't buy too many items (and the ones that I buy last for a long time). I don't have kids. I don't want to have kids.

People who want to have kids should accept the fact that kids cost money. So make just as many as you can support even during the worst times. People who buy more than they can afford will learn sooner or later. If tax was based on consumption, how many people would get things that they cannot afford to begin with? I know some people who ripped themselves a second a-hole in order to get a house which they clearly cannot afford [without eating cat food for the next 30 years]. Those guys make the sub-prime market go ape shit which may turn into higher rates overall.

Yes, there is that threat in terms of black market. However, how many people are cheating on their taxes now? Is buying something w/o tax different than padding your charity contributions or avoiding taxes altogether? I just think that we should try something new. After years of bullshit we should be able to say, "Okay, this did not work. Next idea, please."

Sorry you had to read a long reply. I did tend to type out a big reply. I was all liquored up and may even have smoked a blunt, I can't really remember. I type at the speed of light under the influence of whiskey, so it did come out long.

But anyway, back on the subject. I've seen this guy Neil Boortz on some TV shows talking about this Fair Tax plan. I don't know much about this guy other than the fact that he sounds like he is full of shit. He has somehow been able to convince himself that this is a good idea.

His idea is so loaded with assumptions that it is basically a preposterous idea from the get go. For the plan to work... this has to happen and that has to happen. All things that will never happen.

The Fair Tax is never going to happen so it's probably a waste to even think about it.

The taxation situation in this country is definitely out of control. Not only is government taxing the people, there is now a move to grant non-government entities the power of tax collection. I'll give you an example.....

In Norther Virginia a judge recently ruled that the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority can have the power to collect taxes through a number of methods. If successful in all court appeals, it will be taxing home sales at a rate of 4%; it will be collecting new taxes on car rentals and hotel rooms; it will be adding charges to vehicle registrations and inspections. Imagine selling your home in Virginia and having to give 4% of the sales price to a transportation authority. That is completely out of control.

There are some people in this country who think the United Nations should be given the power to tax you. Believe me, the UN is trying very hard to get that power too.

NYMM, why did you have to piss me off so early in the morning? The UN with the power to tax?

That's fucked. I'd never support a politician in favor of this. The US already pays all the UN's bills.

Yes... It's true. The UN has been trying for many years to create the power for themselves to generate their own revenues through the power of taxation. They want to be a power unto themselves and not rely on member countries for funding. Most especially the United States.

The current push is through something they developed in their "Millennium Declaration" and their "Financing for Development" initiatives. Within them are goals called the 'Millennium Development Goals'. Contained within those goals are blueprints for global taxation.

Various taxes they want the power to collect for themselves include things like...

- A global E-mail tax
- A tax on fossil fuels like gasoline, coal, oil and natural gas
- International currency transaction taxes (CTT) (Sometimes called the "Tobin Tax". This alone could generate revenues of over 100 times the UN's current operating budget)
- An international air transport tax
- A separate aviation Fuel Tax
- Wealthy countries turning over 0.7% of their total GDP

It's all wrapped under the guise of helping the poor and financing development.

I think you already know that the UN is aggressively trying to take control of the internet. They want the authority of ICANN to be under their control as a UN agency. If that is allowed to happen, there would be numerous ways for them to tax internet usage and businesses. Maybe censorship could also be possible, but that is another subject.

And yes.... there are politicians who support some or all of these things. Some have proposed bills in Congress to try to implement some of these things. Many Europeans are completely on board with these things.

Blunt, huh?

I thought Boritz was that comedian? Oh, well, never heard of him.

I think Assumtions are predominate in any politicing as you don't know what will happen between passing a Bill and Enforcing it. Just look at the Budget process. You don't honestly believe that they know exactly how much things are going to cost, do you?

We all know that having the antiquated IRS is burdonsom and progressive. The real question is who is going to accept the political fall-out of replacing it? Who has the jingles to pull it off?

I'd like to say R's would rid us of the IRS, but they like the loopholes in the Tax code just as much as the D's. Look at any wealthy person (>150K/Year) and they hire accountants, give to charity, sock away in 401K or IRA's just to avoid loosing more than 30% of their income to the Gov't.

How many months is it now that you work for the Gov't alone before you earn a dime? I think it was something insane like 5 Months!

All that productivity wasted on Accountants and Lawyers. What a shame. :rolleyes:

P.S. F the UN, defund them now! Anti-American Bastards!

No, Bortz is a syndicated talk show host. And contrary to NYMM, he does know what he's talking about. The fact is what he believes is that people should be able to keep what they make and be taxed on what they spend. Plain and simple. It is a workable plan. I do agree theres way to many welfare leaches out there that depend on liberal democrats for support from generation to generation for the Fair Tax to be adopted. So, in a way, this is a moot point.

I believe Huckabee is in favor of getting rid of the IRS, if you want to get behind a candidate for President.

If I'm getting behind any candidate, it'll be someone I know something about, in otherwords, it's still a year away and as an Independant I can't vote in the Primary and have no say until it is the R Vs. D on the Ticket and I know there is not a D in the world I would/could vote for with the exception of Joe Lieberman, but that would be a huge stretch as I only respect the Man for his support of the Military and this War.

Does every issue have to be so Divisive? War, Terrorism, Politics, Religion, X Vs. Jeep and so on....

Can't we all agree that we should be able to know what the rules are without earning a degree? This goes for all Laws, Rules, Taxes, etc.

Aren't we in the end just breaking it down to yes or no answers?

When are we going to turn our lives over to uncompassionate AI to determine our fate?

ETA - I'd hate to be this Brokeback guy! No one cares at all for him obviously.
[img]http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20070...Bx9vG63XbEBuw--[/img]

If it were me, I would have just had everyone line the chairs in a circle and bat around some info and just drop the speech. Would have made for better pictures as well.

Boortz doesn't know what he is talking about. It's also NOT a workable plan.

Boortz's reliance on "embedded taxes" already incorporated into current pricing schemes is more than just a little specious. Many consumer items today are manufactured overseas and have already removed much of the "embedded" pricing that is incumbent on items manufactured here in the US.

Boortz's plan involes "consumption allowances" and rebates paid by the government. Aren't the rebates another government entitlement system?

The Fair Tax also assumes full taxpayer compliance. That is one of it's biggest flaws, besides all of the other assumptions it makes.

His Fair Tax also taxes all new goods and services. Used goods are not taxed including homes.

Don't get me wrong... I do think the current tax system needs to be overhauled. I am also not completely against some type of Fair Tax. I just think it needs more study. A lot more study. In it's current form it seems like more bloviating and assumptions than anything else.

The Fair Tax bills that have been proposed in Congress don't eliminate the IRS or do anything about the 16th Amendment, so it is a hard sell. Without eliminating the IRS or the 16th Amendment, it seems more like a fraud being perpetrated on the public.

Right now it seems more like a reactionary emotional tug or an argument that sounds good over a discussion in a corner bar.

The hurdles that would have to be overcome to achieve a successful Fair Tax scheme are virtually insurmountable. It would also require the individual states to go along with the scheme. Another insurmountable hurdle.

It would also require Democrats to go along with the plan. Right now, how many Democrats support the Fair Tax? How many Democrats support eliminating the IRS? How many Democrats even support studying the proposal?

Where are the Ron Paul supporters on the Fair Tax? If it is so "Libertarian", has he co-sponsored any of the Fair Tax bills in Congress? I don't think so.

Once again, you are focused on some other guy's program. I'm saying Federal Sales Tax replaces Federal Income Tax. Basically, my pay stub would look exactly like it does all the time - ok, minus all that cool war stuff. Seems to me that punishing people for working is the wrong answer.

I support what you are doing 100% bro. I even think that Congress should cut you guys a lot of slack as far as whatever money you are making while being in a forward position.

That doesn't mean I am focused on anyone's program. I think the Fair Tax proposal needs much more study before it is even proposed as an issue.

Stay safe over there.

I tend to favor a consumption based tax. I believe that everyone should be responsible for some of the tax burden, and it seems logical that it should be weighted on consumption. But I also agree with NYMM, the proposals out there that claim implementing one would be a simple task are not realistic in the slightest.

Our tax system is seriously broken. From the laws, to the idiots working in the IRS who couldn't find their ass if you drew them a map. (OK, I'm bitter because they have messed up my return for the second time in 3 years).

First off, it's too complex. The average person should be able to sit down in a hour or so, fill out a short form, and be done. It should not be the stressful drawn out ordeal where you're trying this and that to find your best deal. It should be black and white.

Second we have allowed it to turn into a welfare system, both real and perceived. On one hand you get people looking at tax refunds like a bonus paid to them from the government, when it's just their money they let the government hold on to for a while, interest free. On the other hand, you have people actually getting more back then they paid in. That is beyond ridiculous.

Add in that it doesn't encourage short term savings. It does not encourage paying down debt. You might say, so what, why should a tax system do those things. But if it is easier for a person do do these things, they become more beneficial to the overall economy. If by cutting your consumption for a year you would save money in taxes, you would free up money you would be paying in interest, and gain interest on money you saved that would find its way back into the actual economy instead of feeding banks and this culture of credit we've built for ourselves. You can't tell me that richer, more stable (US)Americans will not lead to a stronger economy.

Sadly, there's no pill to take, no easy answer. Anyone who claims that there is, is either fooling themselves, or doing their best to fool you. We've entitled imbeciles to build an overwhelmingly complex system that cannot be easily unraveled, and they've tasked incompetents to run it. (Ok, again, just bitter... but our law makers certainly are imbeciles.)

The people to make any significant positive changes will have to be honest, and admit it's a daunting task, that will be painful for government and people. And government is going to have to be willing to sacrifice, as the people have been doing all along.

Something needs to be done. Our middle class is suffering, and needs relief. Too many people out there are taking none of the burden while often receiving the most benefit. What the answer is I certainly don't know, and haven't seen anyone else who has it either.

Well, thought out there Coop.