The solution to all our Tax problems??

[MiltonFriedman]

"I fail to see why a National Sales Tax would need to track purchasers"

There is no need; that was his policy goal, not mine.

What I quoted was his belief that "somehow the government must keep track of all the money earned".

(I happen to disagree with a National Sales tax, on other grounds, as it IS regressive and leaves income untaxed, in favor of taxing spending.)

[demon102]

I just have one follow up question, when I repot my taxes they want from Jan 1st to dec. 31 right? might sound stupid but I wanna make sure

[scorcher863]

Sorry i haven't replied in a while, I just noticed they moved this post.

I'd like to go on the record to say that i am not a fascist. lol Maybe what i said about the government knowing where every dollar is was a little extreme - but it was not the main premise of my whole post.

The thought that provoked this notion was the illegal crime economy that exists in America today (after all, it is the current tax system that helped take down organized crime in places like New York City and Chicago.) I have witnessed this illegal economy firsthand growing up, in a suburb of florida no less. It seems like everybody i know deals with percocet or oxicontin. These pills are highly addictive and are a derivative of heroin (so i am told.) Not only that but some doctors prescribe them for any ache or pain, and many are making deals behind closed doors (i've heard of this happening from different sources.) Weed is just about everywhere in America and I've heard of ppl having beans (xtacy) around here all the time.

The great thing about the current tax code is that if these dealers were to - say - by a house, uncle sam would be at their new doorstep, in a heart beat, asking where all this income is coming from. Soon after, they would be arrested for tax evasion - ending the possibily of crime to thrive and thus, preventing mass pandemonium. Now I am not for government to know every little spec about every citizen, but I also believe some of the monitoring protects americans and keeps the country operating smoothly.

This brings me to another great point about the fairtax, these drug dealers (and other illegal earners) will no longer be able to avoid paying taxes. When they go "ball out" at a restaurant and spend 500 dollars on food and drinks (a typical purchase because they can't buy anything that leaves a paper trail), they are only making the country richer. The Fairtax brings billions (trillions??) of dollars of underground currency to taxation.

As for the Fairtax hurting the lower classes---the bill offers something called a prebate. I'm not really entirely sure on how it works, but from what i gather the prebate is something like a tax deduction in the current system. Every citizen is entitled to this deduction, or prebate, on purchased items considered "necessities" for living. Therefore people at or below the poverty line will not be taxed, as all or most of the money they spend will be refunded via the prebate.

The Fairtax may or may not be good for America, I dont know. And you can't trust politicians - they tell you whatever you want to hear, just to get your vote. But anyone reading must admit, it seems like a great solution to our poker gains tax problems.

[AzDesertRat]

Cut spending in Washington and taxes will go down.

Too ingenious and simple---Congress would never go for it.

[ShakeZula06]

New tax system, same as the old tax system.
[ QUOTE ]
I still believe that somehow the government must keep track of all the money earned so crime can't thrive and cause mass pandemonium.

[/ QUOTE ]
What basis to you have to think that without the government monitoring every transaction there will be pandemonium? Do you think the government should monitor online poker sites to defend against the made up threat of money laundering?

Actually having a 23% sales tax might be a good thing, because it would skyrocket demand for companies that went around the sales tax, thus giving the government less funding.

[NeBlis]

[ QUOTE ]
FWIW, IMO the "Fair Tax" is a regressive tax that will favor the rich and further imprison the 50 inch HDTV renting trailer park residents of this country, and therefore I think it SUCKS. Paying taxes on what you spend is all well and good, and seems like a flat tax, which in itself is harder on the poor/little guy, as they have less left after taxes. But tell me someone who makes $20MM a year is going to spend $20MM and pay taxes on everything. What about someone who makes $20K?? Yes they will spend it all, so their tax is 23% and the rich guys is 23% of what he spends, plus the 2-3% that is levied on income greater than X? What a joke. Don't support this tax until you read it and see if it agrees with your overall sensibilities, not just your own self-interest at the poker tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

The joke is that you totally misrepresent the facts. the poor pay less under the fair tax not more. Monthly rebates are sent according to income.

from the Fair Tax FAQ

"Under the FairTax plan, poor people pay no net FairTax at all up to the poverty level! Every household receives a rebate that is equal to the FairTax paid on essential goods and services, and wage earners are no longer subject to the most regressive and burdensome tax of all, the payroll tax. Those spending at twice the poverty level pay a tax of only 11.5 percent a rate much lower than the income and payroll tax burden they bear today.

Under the federal income tax, slow economic growth and recessions have a disproportionately adverse impact on lower-income families. Breadwinners in these families are more likely to lose their jobs, are less likely to have the resources to weather bad economic times, and are more in need of the initial employment opportunities that a dynamic, growing economy provides. Retaining the present tax system makes economic progress needlessly slow, thus harming low-income people the most."


here is a comparative chart of the two effective rates.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
FWIW, IMO the "Fair Tax" is a regressive tax that will favor the rich and further imprison the 50 inch HDTV renting trailer park residents of this country, and therefore I think it SUCKS. Paying taxes on what you spend is all well and good, and seems like a flat tax, which in itself is harder on the poor/little guy, as they have less left after taxes. But tell me someone who makes $20MM a year is going to spend $20MM and pay taxes on everything. What about someone who makes $20K?? Yes they will spend it all, so their tax is 23% and the rich guys is 23% of what he spends, plus the 2-3% that is levied on income greater than X? What a joke. Don't support this tax until you read it and see if it agrees with your overall sensibilities, not just your own self-interest at the poker tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I don't support the FairTax, there's more to consider about a tax policy than just how much you'll be taking from the rich.

Capital gains tax should be 0%. Do you understand why this is good for the poor?

natedogg

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
FWIW, IMO the "Fair Tax" is a regressive tax that will favor the rich and further imprison the 50 inch HDTV renting trailer park residents of this country, and therefore I think it SUCKS. Paying taxes on what you spend is all well and good, and seems like a flat tax, which in itself is harder on the poor/little guy, as they have less left after taxes. But tell me someone who makes $20MM a year is going to spend $20MM and pay taxes on everything. What about someone who makes $20K?? Yes they will spend it all, so their tax is 23% and the rich guys is 23% of what he spends, plus the 2-3% that is levied on income greater than X? What a joke. Don't support this tax until you read it and see if it agrees with your overall sensibilities, not just your own self-interest at the poker tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

The joke is that you totally misrepresent the facts. the poor pay less under the fair tax not more. Monthly rebates are sent according to income.

from the Fair Tax FAQ

"Under the FairTax plan, poor people pay no net FairTax at all up to the poverty level! Every household receives a rebate that is equal to the FairTax paid on essential goods and services, and wage earners are no longer subject to the most regressive and burdensome tax of all, the payroll tax. Those spending at twice the poverty level pay a tax of only 11.5 percent a rate much lower than the income and payroll tax burden they bear today.

Under the federal income tax, slow economic growth and recessions have a disproportionately adverse impact on lower-income families. Breadwinners in these families are more likely to lose their jobs, are less likely to have the resources to weather bad economic times, and are more in need of the initial employment opportunities that a dynamic, growing economy provides. Retaining the present tax system makes economic progress needlessly slow, thus harming low-income people the most."


here is a comparative chart of the two effective rates.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the information, and hopefully that will help clear up some misconceptions.

On a side note, I don't like the idea of prebates based on income because that still requires an intrusive federal bureaucracy tracking the income of every individual. This is a negative not to be underestimated. For one thing, I'd imagine you could get audited just the same as today under such a system and the burden of proof would still be on you. There would probably be people scamming to get larger prebates than they were entitled to, also. Much better (I would guess) would be to simply exempt some basic things from the FairTax in the first place, things such as: non-prepared food, rent, medical/dental care, toiletry/grooming items, basic clothing, gasoline/fuel, and automotive parts and repairs. That would be simpler to implement (once categories were determined), less intrusive, less empowering of Big Brother, and less susceptible to fraud.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Cut spending in Washington and taxes will go down.

Too ingenious and simple---Congress would never go for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

A fair point and even cutting the rate of growth in spending for at least some programs would have a major impact.

Also this recent report shows Federal budget deficit down by a third over last year:

Federal budget deficit down by a third

From the article:

Receipts are up about 8% year-to-date, while outlays are up less than 3%.

The revenue gains are primarily from individual taxes.
Individual income taxes are up about $80 billion, or 12%, while payroll taxes are up about $25 billion, or 4.5%. Corporate income taxes are up $25 billion, or 13%.
"Growth in those receipts [corporate taxes] has continued to outpace growth in gross domestic product, but to a much smaller extent than in the past three years," CBO said. "Furthermore, it has been declining throughout most of this year, indicating likely slowing in the growth of profits."

The improvement in outlays is largely due to the benign hurricane season last year, which reduced spending on flood insurance and disaster relief by about $27 billion compared with the previous fiscal year when spending surged after Hurricane Katrina.

I have my doubts that $27 billion due to Katrina relief accounts for all of the reduced growth in outlays but whatever. The point though is that revenues are rising faster than outlays which helps.

[NeBlis]

[ QUOTE ]
On a side note, I don't like the idea of prebates based on income because that still requires an intrusive federal bureaucracy tracking the income of every individual. This is a negative not to be underestimated.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes of course.But the fair tax bill as written does not call for this.

from the bill:

[ QUOTE ]
Each qualified family shall be eligible to receive a sales tax rebate each month. The sales tax rebate shall be in an amount equal to the product of--

`(1) the rate of tax imposed by section 101, and

`(2) the monthly poverty level.

`(a) General Rule- For purposes of this chapter, the term `qualified family' shall mean 1 or more family members sharing a common residence. All family members sharing a common residence shall be considered as part of 1 qualified family.



[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
Much better (I would guess) would be to simply exempt some basic things from the FairTax in the first place, things such as: non-prepared food, rent, medical/dental care, toiletry/grooming items, basic clothing, gasoline/fuel, and automotive parts and repairs. That would be simpler to implement (once categories were determined), less intrusive, less empowering of Big Brother, and less susceptible to fraud.


[/ QUOTE ]

Agree and this is included in the proposal.