Fair Tax vs. Flat Tax: Why Income Taxes destroys US jobs

[FA_Q2]

It's still not as good as the Fair Tax, but that would be far better than what we have in place today. As I understand the Flat Tax proposals in DC though, they only flatten income taxes, they don't eliminate the other ones.

That is true but that is because politicians are not interested in a fair or flat tax.

Fair enough, it just would have helped if you'd clarified that up front, I thought you were talking about the Flat Tax as discussed in DC.

I’ll have to keep that in mind. I don’t pay a lot of attention to the tax proposals in DC because I had never seen anything that remotely tries to reform the system. All I ever seen was bullshit proposals to cover up the current corruption of the code. Untill you linked one that is

Sure it has. John Linder proposed in in 2007. I heard he proposes it every year, I didn't verify that though. He's had a variety of co-sponsors.

Rep. John Linder introduces HR 25, "The FairTax Act of 2007" - Americans For Fair Taxation

Thanks for the link. I find that very interesting because all those that I have talked to before tried making certain things exempt (like food) and that is one of the MAJOR problems that I have with sales tax proposals. Making exemptions just leads to what we have now – a convoluted mess of special interests.

Dealing with that with a probate is not something I have explored before and I find the entire concept rather interesting and it would DEFINITELY be a better way to address the ‘regressive taxation’ concerns of some. Unfortunately, I think that leaves another hole though.

I used to support a progressive flat tax, basically a tax that was constitutionally locked in at specific ratios to each other so that a raise in one would be reflected in all. I abandoned that idea after some very persuasive points by a poster here that essentially argued the continued political ploy in class warfare. I don’t see much of a difference in that and the probate where people would tend to want to vote a continues increase in the probate and an increased sales tax. That way they could stick it to the ‘rich’ and ensure they did not pay taxes at all. Something that can be quite similar to what we have now. One of the reasons that I support a true flat income tax is that it still allows the rich to pay the lions share (as they have the lion’s share of the income) but treats all dollars equally and NO ONE has any means whatsoever to avoid the taxes that they owe. In ownership terms, everyone will feel that ownership and, more importantly, they all know that if they want to raise taxes they WILL be affected. That is the most important factor – there will no longer be this argument of raising taxes on the rich or lowering them for the rich. Every person will go to that voting booth with the question of whether or not THEY want to pay more taxes instead of whether or not they want someone else to pay more taxes.

People are WAY more responsible with their own money than they are with others.

Only under the current system. Remember, I believe that a flat tax should be devoid of corporate tax altogether.

OK, fair enough, then I agree it's not double taxed.

Glad we can agree on something

That overseas competition should not be ‘evened out’ with the tax code. As I stated, all taxes should have a single purpose, to fund the government.

I'm not proposing we do it to "even out" as some esoteric standard of fairness. I'm pointing out that our tax code actually helps foreign competition. I want to do it because giving them a tax break and putting all our taxes on US companies and foreign companies that build plants here doesn't make sense. Tax everyone who sells good in our market evenly and it helps our companies. I'm not a sobby liberal crying it's not fair. I'm a capitalist saying it's stupid to shoot ourselves in the foot.

Nor am I. You were pointing out the real fact that tax policy helps foreign competition and puts our companies at a disadvantage though as well as the fact that it incentivizes offshoring. That is what I was addressing. International policy (and tax policy) should not do that and, instead, should be neutral in that realm. That is what I was referring to. If the tax policy has a problem in that arena then our foreign policy should cover that. It is not in the spirit of ‘fairness’ but rather in the stark reality that markets do not work properly when the government is screwing with them. Ultimately, while I think that an income tax is the way to go I do not think that foreign produced goods should be allowed to enjoy our marketplace without paying for the l0075uries that they are using (the roads, stores, police etc) that allows that product to come to market. I don’t have a problem with charging those product importers with a fee. I have even less of a problem when those foreign nations are doing similar things to our products which many of them actually do in some form or another.

As for your goal, by widening the tax base, it helps fund the government better.

My goal is not so much to fund the government ‘better.’ The government gets funded either way. My goal is to just fund the government. IOW, I want ALL social engineering from the central planner idiots to end. I don’t want them trying to corner me into purchasing the approved window, furnace or whatever else that they want to incentivize. That is not the place of the government. I want the people to make decisions on their own. Ending the special favors from the government is one step (a BIG one) down that road.

 

[FA_Q2]

According to fairtax.org, once the fairtax 'prebate' is applied, Steve's tax rate is zero (or less, depending on family size etc.),

and Joe's is 11.5%.

I think you're still reversing Joe and Steve. Joe is worth $10 an hour, Steve is worth $30.

I wasn't demonstrating the fair tax, I was demonstrating income tax.

Whatever. You support the fair tax. The fair tax is net negative to lower income families.

IOW, Some get more in so-called 'prebates' than they are expected to spend in taxes.

That's different from the current system how, exactly?

The main difference would be that an increase in taxes would still affect them. Right now, we have a system where one can demand that someone else get taxed for that extra service that you want. That directly leads to the asinine vitriol that we see today. With any sort of flat tax, there is no discussion over who you want to steal from – those that vote to increase or decrease taxes will ALWAYS be looking at the impact that THEY are going to experience rather than placing it on some other unknown entity.

When you are taxing someone else, it is never enough and you will always see it as currently unfair. That is what happens when you can’t see anything from another perspective.

 

[FA_Q2]

Martin Luther King Junior was an idiot, he talked as if blacks would ever be considered equals in this country. Wow, it happened...

You followed up a good question in your last post with a brain fart here. I reject your crap that I can't talk about anything that you don't approve of as realistic or unrealistic.

That is from the same line of thinking that rejects libertarians because they are not democrats or republicans. We all know that somehow not voting for the 2 parties is really not voting at all


Little do they seem to recognize that ALL ideas start out small and unpopular until you can gain the support that is needed for real change? If we always looked at what they called ‘practical’ solutions, nothing would ever change and we would forever be stuck on the current track.

Keep fighting the good fight (even if you are wrong!)