Americans for Fair Taxation - FairTax.org

[tooAlive]

Yeah, I don't think I like the fair tax...

Give me a flat tax!!

Get rid of the IRS!!!

Think about it for a bit before you discard the idea.

A simple flat tax on all income would me much more prone to allowing special interest groups to take advantage of it. And if that happens, other groups will be forced to pay more to compensate.

The can't do that with a consumption tax. And since you get to see and feel the Fair Tax every time you make a purchase, any time the government would propose raising it, everyone would voice their disapproval.

Besides, I'm not a fan of taxing income. I'd rather get taxed on my purchases. Just my 2 cents anyways.

 

[pjnlsn]

Arguing about whether something is 'fair' or not might just devolve into a purely semantic argument, but I don't think most people want a tax on consumption.

Certainly to tax the poorest more (effectively) is a bit odd given that for a couple of decades now, the poor have gotten poorer and the rich have gotten richer.

It gets repeated a lot but wages relative to production value, for most of what are called the blue collar professions, haven't been this low since the 70's.

 

[dblack]

Yeah, I don't think I like the fair tax...

Give me a flat tax!!

Get rid of the IRS!!!

Think about it for a bit before you discard the idea.

A simple flat tax on all income would me much more prone to allowing special interest groups to take advantage of it. And if that happens, other groups will be forced to pay more to compensate.

The can't do that with a consumption tax. And since you get to see and feel the Fair Tax every time you make a purchase, any time the government would propose raising it, everyone would voice their disapproval.

Besides, I'm not a fan of taxing income. I'd rather get taxed on my purchases. Just my 2 cents anyways.

I can see some benefits with the idea. But I'd be concerned with the difficulties of enforcing a nationwide sales tax. It would have to be much higher than the state sales taxes we're used to in order to replace income tax, and that would create a strong incentive for a black market - and a strong incentive for an enforcement regime we might regret.

I think I'd rather see broad based property taxes before sales taxes.

 

[tooAlive]

Arguing about whether something is 'fair' or not might just devolve into a purely semantic argument, but I don't think most people want a tax on consumption.

Certainly to tax the poorest more (effectively) is a bit odd given that for a couple of decades now, the poor have gotten poorer and the rich have gotten richer.

It gets repeated a lot but wages relative to production value, for most of what are called the blue collar professions, haven't been this low since the 70's.

Well, people already pay a tax on consumption. It's called a sales tax. This one would just be a bit higher.

And as the poor class goes, the prebate would effectively exempt them from paying taxes at or beyond the poverty level.

 

[tooAlive]

Yeah, I don't think I like the fair tax...

Give me a flat tax!!

Get rid of the IRS!!!

Think about it for a bit before you discard the idea.

A simple flat tax on all income would me much more prone to allowing special interest groups to take advantage of it. And if that happens, other groups will be forced to pay more to compensate.

The can't do that with a consumption tax. And since you get to see and feel the Fair Tax every time you make a purchase, any time the government would propose raising it, everyone would voice their disapproval.

Besides, I'm not a fan of taxing income. I'd rather get taxed on my purchases. Just my 2 cents anyways.

I can see some benefits with the idea. But I'd be concerned with the difficulties of enforcing a nationwide sales tax. It would have to be much higher than the state sales taxes we're used to in order to replace income tax, and that would create a strong incentive for a black market - and a strong incentive for an enforcement regime we might regret.

I think I'd rather see broad based property taxes before sales taxes.

You're right in that it would create some resistance at first. But it would make it much harder for government to raise it at will or give some groups unfair advantages over others.

Not to mention it would also bring in tax revenue from illegally obtained drug and prostitution money.

 

[tooAlive]

This FAQs section of the page answers a lot of questions you guys are probably wondering. I know it did for me.

What is the FairTax | What is a Consumption Tax | Answers on Tax Reform - Americans For Fair Taxation

 

[Obamanation]

Think about it for a bit before you discard the idea.

A simple flat tax on all income would me much more prone to allowing special interest groups to take advantage of it. And if that happens, other groups will be forced to pay more to compensate.

The can't do that with a consumption tax. And since you get to see and feel the Fair Tax every time you make a purchase, any time the government would propose raising it, everyone would voice their disapproval.

Besides, I'm not a fan of taxing income. I'd rather get taxed on my purchases. Just my 2 cents anyways.

I can see some benefits with the idea. But I'd be concerned with the difficulties of enforcing a nationwide sales tax. It would have to be much higher than the state sales taxes we're used to in order to replace income tax, and that would create a strong incentive for a black market - and a strong incentive for an enforcement regime we might regret.

I think I'd rather see broad based property taxes before sales taxes.

You're right in that it would create some resistance at first. But it would make it much harder for government to raise it at will or give some groups unfair advantages over others.

Not to mention it would also bring in tax revenue from illegally obtained drug and prostitution money.

Now THAT is a huge benefit. I just don't like that it hits the middle class so hard. It doesn't hurt the poor, or the rich at all --- all the pain falls on us.

 

[pjnlsn]

It's time we had a Fair Taxation system in this country.

Americans For Fair Taxation

FairTax: Fire Up Our Economic Engine (Official HD) - YouTube

And for those thinking that this system is regressive as it would affect poor people the most:

Under the FairTax, all Americans consume what they see as their necessities of life free of tax. While permitting no exemptions, the FairTax (HR25/S122) provides a monthly universal prebate to ensure that each family unit can consume tax free at or beyond the poverty level, with the overall effect of making the FairTax progressive in application. There is no marriage penalty as the couple gets twice the amount that a single adult receives.

While everyone pays the same tax rate at the cash register, the prebate results in effective tax rates (annual taxes paid divided by annual spending) that increase as the level of spending increases a progressive tax rate structure. For example, a person spending at the poverty level has a 0% effective tax rate, whereas someone spending at twice the poverty level has an effective tax rate of 11.5%, and so on.

Also, this 'prebate' doesn't make the system non-regressive, it (apparently) just increases everyone's income by a certain amount?

Further, while it's entirely possible that average taxes for the poorest would be decreased under this system, given it's regressive nature, and even with this 'prebate', total tax income would be decreased. That, or it will indeed amount to increased taxes on the poorest. Which, given falling wages as described in last post, would seem to be a step in the wrong direction. Or at least, a step in a direction the majority don't want to travel in.

 

[pjnlsn]

Arguing about whether something is 'fair' or not might just devolve into a purely semantic argument, but I don't think most people want a tax on consumption.

Certainly to tax the poorest more (effectively) is a bit odd given that for a couple of decades now, the poor have gotten poorer and the rich have gotten richer.

It gets repeated a lot but wages relative to production value, for most of what are called the blue collar professions, haven't been this low since the 70's.

Well, people already pay a tax on consumption. It's called a sales tax. This one would just be a bit higher.

And as the poor class goes, the prebate would effectively exempt them from paying taxes at or beyond the poverty level.

Err, yes, well you know what I mean, the majority wouldn't want to pay more taxes on consumption.

And that doesn't make the system non-regressive; It's still regressive, just not to the point of poverty (as defined by the HHS).

 

[tooAlive]

I can see some benefits with the idea. But I'd be concerned with the difficulties of enforcing a nationwide sales tax. It would have to be much higher than the state sales taxes we're used to in order to replace income tax, and that would create a strong incentive for a black market - and a strong incentive for an enforcement regime we might regret.

I think I'd rather see broad based property taxes before sales taxes.

You're right in that it would create some resistance at first. But it would make it much harder for government to raise it at will or give some groups unfair advantages over others.

Not to mention it would also bring in tax revenue from illegally obtained drug and prostitution money.

Now THAT is a huge benefit. I just don't like that it hits the middle class so hard. It doesn't hurt the poor, or the rich at all --- all the pain falls on us.

I get what you're saying. In any case I really don't see that changing much, as the middle class is already taking it the hardest.

At least now they'd at least know everyone is paying their fair share. And by everyone being vocal about it, perhaps government would be more inclined to cut spending.

It's all hypothetical anyways. But decidedly, our current system is a debacle.

 

[tooAlive]

Arguing about whether something is 'fair' or not might just devolve into a purely semantic argument, but I don't think most people want a tax on consumption.

Certainly to tax the poorest more (effectively) is a bit odd given that for a couple of decades now, the poor have gotten poorer and the rich have gotten richer.

It gets repeated a lot but wages relative to production value, for most of what are called the blue collar professions, haven't been this low since the 70's.

Well, people already pay a tax on consumption. It's called a sales tax. This one would just be a bit higher.

And as the poor class goes, the prebate would effectively exempt them from paying taxes at or beyond the poverty level.

Err, yes, well you know what I mean, the majority wouldn't want to pay more taxes on consumption.

And that doesn't make the system non-regressive; It's still regressive, just not to the point of poverty (as defined by the HHS).

Yeah, I get what you're saying as well. The poor probably won't be affected by it at all, given the prebate and that they can always buy some things used and avoid being taxed.

But this is the only system I can think of there the government doesn't get progressively bigger, as people would likely be very vocal any time tax hikes would be proposed.

The whole idea is that with enough cuts to spending and everyone paying in their required percentage, that the rate could actually be relatively low.

 

[pjnlsn]

Well, people already pay a tax on consumption. It's called a sales tax. This one would just be a bit higher.

And as the poor class goes, the prebate would effectively exempt them from paying taxes at or beyond the poverty level.

Err, yes, well you know what I mean, the majority wouldn't want to pay more taxes on consumption.

And that doesn't make the system non-regressive; It's still regressive, just not to the point of poverty (as defined by the HHS).

Yeah, I get what you're saying as well. The poor probably won't be affected by it at all, given the prebate and that they can always buy some things used and avoid being taxed.

But this is the only system I can think of there the government doesn't get progressively bigger, as people would likely be very vocal any time tax hikes would be proposed.

The whole idea is that with enough cuts to spending and everyone paying in their required percentage, that the rate could actually be relatively low.

Right, well, fair enough. I just see this as excessive, given what it is in my opinion not a large problem.

For the record, while it might fix the size of some aspects of government, it would also constitute the single largest welfare program in our history.

 

[tooAlive]

Err, yes, well you know what I mean, the majority wouldn't want to pay more taxes on consumption.

And that doesn't make the system non-regressive; It's still regressive, just not to the point of poverty (as defined by the HHS).

Yeah, I get what you're saying as well. The poor probably won't be affected by it at all, given the prebate and that they can always buy some things used and avoid being taxed.

But this is the only system I can think of there the government doesn't get progressively bigger, as people would likely be very vocal any time tax hikes would be proposed.

The whole idea is that with enough cuts to spending and everyone paying in their required percentage, that the rate could actually be relatively low.

Right, well, fair enough. I just see this as excessive, given what it is in my opinion not a large problem.

For the record, while it might fix the size of some aspects of government, it would also constitute the single largest welfare program in our history.

Good point there as well. Perhaps after reaching a certain income, you'd be exempt from receiving the prebate? I wouldn't have a problem with that at all, and it would probably save the government a ton of money as well.

 

[pjnlsn]

Yeah, I get what you're saying as well. The poor probably won't be affected by it at all, given the prebate and that they can always buy some things used and avoid being taxed.

But this is the only system I can think of there the government doesn't get progressively bigger, as people would likely be very vocal any time tax hikes would be proposed.

The whole idea is that with enough cuts to spending and everyone paying in their required percentage, that the rate could actually be relatively low.

Right, well, fair enough. I just see this as excessive, given what it is in my opinion not a large problem.

For the record, while it might fix the size of some aspects of government, it would also constitute the single largest welfare program in our history.

Good point there as well. Perhaps after reaching a certain income, you'd be exempt from receiving the prebate? I wouldn't have a problem with that at all, and it would probably save the government a ton of money as well.

Indeed that would decrease the bureaucratic costs to a fraction of what they'd be otherwise, depending on the upper limit.

 

[Grandma]

I see an across the board major problem with every bit of tax reform talk, from the White House all the way down to the rightwing extremists on message boards.

The population is looked upon as classes, not individuals.

Look at some of the deductions we currently have. Is it fair for two families making $55,000/year to pay the same tax rate? If they're identical families, sure. But what if there are 7 kids in Family A and two kids in Family B? What if Mom & Dad A have to buy work uniforms and drive 20 miles (in opposite directions) to work, while Dad B can wear street clothes and walk 20 yards to his job? Mom & Dad A have to pay someone to watch their kids, Mom B stays at home with hers. Mom & Dad A want to send their kids to college to better themselves, Mom & Dad B think college is just a place to find a suitable spouse, and therefore their kids won't be there 4 years.

What about Businessman A whose firm netted him $2M last year, which he divided between the savings, checking, and retirement accounts, charity donations, and buying nice things for himself and his family, and Trust Fund Baby B whose stock dividends paid him $2M last year, $1.5M of which he sent to an offshore account in the Cayman Islands?

One size does not fit all.

 

[Obamanation]

I see an across the board major problem with every bit of tax reform talk, from the White House all the way down to the rightwing extremists on message boards.

The population is looked upon as classes, not individuals.

Look at some of the deductions we currently have. Is it fair for two families making $55,000/year to pay the same tax rate? If they're identical families, sure. But what if there are 7 kids in Family A and two kids in Family B? What if Mom & Dad A have to buy work uniforms and drive 20 miles (in opposite directions) to work, while Dad B can wear street clothes and walk 20 yards to his job? Mom & Dad A have to pay someone to watch their kids, Mom B stays at home with hers. Mom & Dad A want to send their kids to college to better themselves, Mom & Dad B think college is just a place to find a suitable spouse, and therefore their kids won't be there 4 years.

What about Businessman A whose firm netted him $2M last year, which he divided between the savings, checking, and retirement accounts, charity donations, and buying nice things for himself and his family, and Trust Fund Baby B whose stock dividends paid him $2M last year, $1.5M of which he sent to an offshore account in the Cayman Islands?

One size does not fit all.

wack job alert!!!

 

[editec]

FLAT TAX makes perfect sense in a COMMUNIST nation.

In a capitalist nation it's dumber than dust.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Yeah, I don't think I like the fair tax...

Give me a flat tax!!

Get rid of the IRS!!!

Think about it for a bit before you discard the idea.

A simple flat tax on all income would me much more prone to allowing special interest groups to take advantage of it. And if that happens, other groups will be forced to pay more to compensate.

The can't do that with a consumption tax. And since you get to see and feel the Fair Tax every time you make a purchase, any time the government would propose raising it, everyone would voice their disapproval.

Besides, I'm not a fan of taxing income. I'd rather get taxed on my purchases. Just my 2 cents anyways.

I can see some benefits with the idea. But I'd be concerned with the difficulties of enforcing a nationwide sales tax. It would have to be much higher than the state sales taxes we're used to in order to replace income tax, and that would create a strong incentive for a black market - and a strong incentive for an enforcement regime we might regret.

I think I'd rather see broad based property taxes before sales taxes.

So you would favor having property owners foot the bills?

 

[gallantwarrior]

I see an across the board major problem with every bit of tax reform talk, from the White House all the way down to the rightwing extremists on message boards.

The population is looked upon as classes, not individuals.

Look at some of the deductions we currently have. Is it fair for two families making $55,000/year to pay the same tax rate? If they're identical families, sure. But what if there are 7 kids in Family A and two kids in Family B? What if Mom & Dad A have to buy work uniforms and drive 20 miles (in opposite directions) to work, while Dad B can wear street clothes and walk 20 yards to his job? Mom & Dad A have to pay someone to watch their kids, Mom B stays at home with hers. Mom & Dad A want to send their kids to college to better themselves, Mom & Dad B think college is just a place to find a suitable spouse, and therefore their kids won't be there 4 years.

What about Businessman A whose firm netted him $2M last year, which he divided between the savings, checking, and retirement accounts, charity donations, and buying nice things for himself and his family, and Trust Fund Baby B whose stock dividends paid him $2M last year, $1.5M of which he sent to an offshore account in the Cayman Islands?

One size does not fit all.

And Life isn't fair. Individuals make choices, why should anyone else be forced to compensate for another's choices.

 

[zeke]

The thing with the "fair tax" that I could never wrap my brain around is that the vast majority of middle and lower income people spend ALL of their money --- this basically, in my mind, means that unless you are upper middle to upper class --- virtually all of your disposable income is taxed.

I'd much prefer a flat tax - that still allows us to do away with the IRS, but isn't UNfairly taxing all who spend all of their disposable income.

But there may be parts of the "fair tax" that I am not understanding completely.

There's a prebate system that's given out to everyone that ensures nobody will pay taxes at or beyond the poverty level. So the people that can't afford to pay taxes won't have to.

The problem with that is it makes EVERYONE get a government check, so basically everyone is on the "dole." Then when the government wants to put on the squeeze, it just has to threaten the "prebate" and everyone who depends on it will fall in line.

Better to not tax basic things like food medicine, and lodging.

That's what I was thinking. The right hates the fact that the working poor get all the Federal taxes they pay in, they get back. And the number of people this is happening to is growing.

So now, in an effort to make the ultra wealthy even more ultra wealthy, the want to do that same thing again. Give poor people a "tax break". Then they would bitch about it.

That has already been done. A tax break for the poor so that the ultra rich could get a bigger tax break.

No thanks.