The Fair Tax Primer

My only issue with the Fair Tax is the "prebate" thing.

It seems silly to charge a higher rate of a tax only to have to incur the cost if giving every single person in the country a check every month
We already have high tax rates and massive borrowing to cover the $1.4 trillion of tax expenditures each year.

So your objection is demonstrating an ignorance of a much worse situation which already exists.

My objection is charging a higher rate of sales tax then incurring the expense of sending every single person in the country a check every month is fucking stupid just lower the rate and eliminate all the extra paperwork and expenses
I guess you don't understand what a regressive tax is.

*sigh*
 
The Fair Tax introduces transparency.

Under our current system, our politicians are paid big bucks to sneak all kinds of gifts into the tax code which allows special interest to pay less tax. There are only two ways to offset these gifts to the leeches:

1) Increase tax rates on everyone

2) Borrow

Our government does both. It raises tax rates and borrows heavily from our enemies, at interest. All to accommodate the $1.4 trillion a tax expenditures.


With the Fair Tax, you get a lot more transparency.

And you replace it with a government check to every person that then allows government to control them even more.

No. Thank. You.
It's replaced with a prebate which mitigates the regressive nature of a sales tax.

In exchange, EVERYONE has skin in the game. As I explained several times in this topic already, this will also mitigate excessive spending, because if people demand more spending they have to pay the bill out of their own pockets.

We currently exist in a scheme whereby you get a deduction which someone else has to make up for with higher taxes.

Or we could mitigate the regressive nature of a sales tax by lowering the rate charged and getting rid of the prebate.
 
I'm thinking about starting a topic about a "negative income tax" next. :lol:
 
My only issue with the Fair Tax is the "prebate" thing.

It seems silly to charge a higher rate of a tax only to have to incur the cost if giving every single person in the country a check every month
We already have high tax rates and massive borrowing to cover the $1.4 trillion of tax expenditures each year.

So your objection is demonstrating an ignorance of a much worse situation which already exists.

My objection is charging a higher rate of sales tax then incurring the expense of sending every single person in the country a check every month is fucking stupid just lower the rate and eliminate all the extra paperwork and expenses
I guess you don't understand what a regressive tax is.

*sigh*

A tax is a fucking tax.

It never makes sense to charge a higher rate then give some of it back

Just charge a lower rate and be done with it.
 
First cut BLOATED government spending then we can talk about taxes.
Start with the Pentagon.
Raise the Social Security and Medicare eligibility age to 70, and index the age to 9 percent of the population going forward.

Right, a 70 year old granny can stand all day on a factory floor. Hopefully she will die before she collects one dime of the social security and medicare benefits she was forced to purchase. Hell lets raise the age to 80.


That's the point of social security, it was not meant to be a retirement program for everyone..when it started the average age of death was under 65 years old

You are ignoring a few facts. Government assholes stole $2.8 trillion dollars of OUR Social Security money and blew it on stupid shit. Now they have no way of paying us back OUR money so government assholes want to raise the retirement age to cheat people out of benefits, or means test to cheat people out of benefits. Those are the facts this BS about people living longer is a crock of shit excuse, the issue is government spent our money.
 
First cut BLOATED government spending then we can talk about taxes.
Start with the Pentagon.
Raise the Social Security and Medicare eligibility age to 70, and index the age to 9 percent of the population going forward.

Right, a 70 year old granny can stand all day on a factory floor. Hopefully she will die before she collects one dime of the social security and medicare benefits she was forced to purchase. Hell lets raise the age to 80.


That's the point of social security, it was not meant to be a retirement program for everyone..when it started the average age of death was under 65 years old

You are ignoring a few facts. Government assholes stole $2.8 trillion dollars of OUR Social Security money and blew it on stupid shit. Now they have no way of paying us back OUR money so government assholes want to raise the retirement age to cheat people out of benefits, or means test to cheat people out of benefits. Those are the facts this BS about people living longer is a crock of shit excuse, the issue is government spent our money.


It's not an excuse it's the truth, if it was up to me I want to collect my SS today (what I played into it ) and get rid of it.
 
The Fair Tax introduces transparency.

Under our current system, our politicians are paid big bucks to sneak all kinds of gifts into the tax code which allows special interest to pay less tax. There are only two ways to offset these gifts to the leeches:

1) Increase tax rates on everyone

2) Borrow

Our government does both. It raises tax rates and borrows heavily from our enemies, at interest. All to accommodate the $1.4 trillion a tax expenditures.


With the Fair Tax, you get a lot more transparency.

And you replace it with a government check to every person that then allows government to control them even more.

No. Thank. You.
It's replaced with a prebate which mitigates the regressive nature of a sales tax.

In exchange, EVERYONE has skin in the game. As I explained several times in this topic already, this will also mitigate excessive spending, because if people demand more spending they have to pay the bill out of their own pockets.

We currently exist in a scheme whereby you get a deduction which someone else has to make up for with higher taxes.

A prebate is nothing more than a government check to cover the things that are supposedly "essentials"

Once people get accustomed to getting government $$, they expect it, and see it as government's money, and not theirs.

sooner or later some people will get more $$ due to government not being able to control itself or its need to get people to vote for it for free stuff.

You will end up with what we have now, except now government has people expecting their monthly handout and has leverage to say "HEY those guys want to cut your check!!!" Vote for me and I will increase it!!!!

Instead we already have a mechanism for consumption based tax exemptions, via what happens with sales tax.

You don't "take" from people. everyone gets the same tax free items, unprepared foods, medicine, and clothes under $100 dollars.
 
The only leeching going on is whatever is sucking out the ability to think from your brain, you TDS suffering splooge.
Let's see if you are dumb enought to call Devin Nunes a libtard liar blah blah blah...

Here is Nunes explaining that every credit, deduction, and exemption is paid for by raising tax rates on everyone: No tax reform without border adjustment tax, Rep. Nunes says

"If people wanted to drop the corporate rate from 35 to say 33, 32, maybe 30, we could probably do it. But if you go back to several years that we looked at doing just that, the goal was to get to 25 percent, and by the time every lobbyist, every special interest group in town, representing every major corporation in this country, the tax rate was automatically all the way back above 30 by the time you put everybody's special loophole in."


Read that a hundred times if that is how much it takes for you to comprehend it.

I know you won't.

Nunes sits on the House Ways and Means Committee. That's the committee responsible for taxation.

Nunes clearly states that every deduction, exemption, and credit is paid for by raising tax rates on everyone. That's why I call them government gifts, because they are. They are theft from someone else's pocket.

Leeching.

What he is saying is everyone gets deductions, and some of them he doesn't like. blah blah blah.

Not theft. stop being such a melodramatic ninny.

And the sad thing is that i agree with you on the concept of consumption based taxation rather than income based, but you are such a thick headed idiot that you can't even take that and then rant over the implementation of it.
Wrong. Nunes states quite plainly, leech, that tax expenditures require raising everyone's tax rates in order to offset those gifts.

Everyone has to pay higher taxes. Period.

They are theft. Pure and simple.

Since everyone gets some form of deduction, it usually balances out.
No, that is not true at all. Not even close to being true.

it's more true than you are letting on.

I get my deduction, they get theirs, and everyone pays less than the marginal rate. You want to complain that it is complex and hides real costs? Fine do that.
 
The Fair Tax introduces transparency.

Under our current system, our politicians are paid big bucks to sneak all kinds of gifts into the tax code which allows special interest to pay less tax. There are only two ways to offset these gifts to the leeches:

1) Increase tax rates on everyone

2) Borrow

Our government does both. It raises tax rates and borrows heavily from our enemies, at interest. All to accommodate the $1.4 trillion a tax expenditures.


With the Fair Tax, you get a lot more transparency.

And you replace it with a government check to every person that then allows government to control them even more.

No. Thank. You.
It's replaced with a prebate which mitigates the regressive nature of a sales tax.

In exchange, EVERYONE has skin in the game. As I explained several times in this topic already, this will also mitigate excessive spending, because if people demand more spending they have to pay the bill out of their own pockets.

We currently exist in a scheme whereby you get a deduction which someone else has to make up for with higher taxes.

A prebate is nothing more than a government check to cover the things that are supposedly "essentials"

Once people get accustomed to getting government $$, they expect it, and see it as government's money, and not theirs.

sooner or later some people will get more $$ due to government not being able to control itself or its need to get people to vote for it for free stuff.

You will end up with what we have now, except now government has people expecting their monthly handout and has leverage to say "HEY those guys want to cut your check!!!" Vote for me and I will increase it!!!!

Instead we already have a mechanism for consumption based tax exemptions, via what happens with sales tax.

You don't "take" from people. everyone gets the same tax free items, unprepared foods, medicine, and clothes under $100 dollars.
The prebate is just another type of welfare check
 
The Fair Tax introduces transparency.

Under our current system, our politicians are paid big bucks to sneak all kinds of gifts into the tax code which allows special interest to pay less tax. There are only two ways to offset these gifts to the leeches:

1) Increase tax rates on everyone

2) Borrow

Our government does both. It raises tax rates and borrows heavily from our enemies, at interest. All to accommodate the $1.4 trillion a tax expenditures.


With the Fair Tax, you get a lot more transparency.

And you replace it with a government check to every person that then allows government to control them even more.

No. Thank. You.
It's replaced with a prebate which mitigates the regressive nature of a sales tax.

In exchange, EVERYONE has skin in the game. As I explained several times in this topic already, this will also mitigate excessive spending, because if people demand more spending they have to pay the bill out of their own pockets.

We currently exist in a scheme whereby you get a deduction which someone else has to make up for with higher taxes.

A prebate is nothing more than a government check to cover the things that are supposedly "essentials"

Once people get accustomed to getting government $$, they expect it, and see it as government's money, and not theirs.

sooner or later some people will get more $$ due to government not being able to control itself or its need to get people to vote for it for free stuff.

You will end up with what we have now, except now government has people expecting their monthly handout and has leverage to say "HEY those guys want to cut your check!!!" Vote for me and I will increase it!!!!

Instead we already have a mechanism for consumption based tax exemptions, via what happens with sales tax.

You don't "take" from people. everyone gets the same tax free items, unprepared foods, medicine, and clothes under $100 dollars.
The prebate is just another type of welfare check

Even if not intended as such, that's what it would turn into.
 
Start with the Pentagon.
Raise the Social Security and Medicare eligibility age to 70, and index the age to 9 percent of the population going forward.

Right, a 70 year old granny can stand all day on a factory floor. Hopefully she will die before she collects one dime of the social security and medicare benefits she was forced to purchase. Hell lets raise the age to 80.


That's the point of social security, it was not meant to be a retirement program for everyone..when it started the average age of death was under 65 years old

You are ignoring a few facts. Government assholes stole $2.8 trillion dollars of OUR Social Security money and blew it on stupid shit. Now they have no way of paying us back OUR money so government assholes want to raise the retirement age to cheat people out of benefits, or means test to cheat people out of benefits. Those are the facts this BS about people living longer is a crock of shit excuse, the issue is government spent our money.


It's not an excuse it's the truth, if it was up to me I want to collect my SS today (what I played into it ) and get rid of it.

They already spent every dime you paid in sorry.
 
If I understand 'Fair Tax' - i.e switching to sales tax only correctly, the problem is that people with higher incomes receive considerably more money than they need for consumption. They would have the option of simply not spending their money...they could squirrel it away in savings accounts or just invest it in stocks or bonds.

I guess that if there sales tax were applied equally to all equity purchases it may be O.K., but it just seems that anyone at the low end of the income scale...who lives pay check to pay check...would be paying a tax on their full income, where as the wealthy would have the option of just not spending money.
 
I believe we should repeal income taxes and enact a Fair Tax.

I believe consumption taxes are superior to taxes on production.

At the same time, I acknowledge a sales tax is regressive.

There are at least two big advantages to a sales tax, however. First, everyone has to pay it. Second, it is a lot harder to hide a tax hike.

You want to give free puppies to hookers? Fine, we'll raise the sales tax to pay for that.

Say what!?!

Suddenly, people won't be so quick to give away taxpayer dollars any more. The days of "gimme gimme gimme, and make that guy over there pay for it" will end. A hike in the Fair Tax will affect everyone!


The Fair Tax is a kind of sales tax, however it attempts to mitigate the regressive nature of a sales tax with a "prebate".

Each month, every adult American would receive a stipend which would offset the tax on things we all have to buy to survive. The prebate would be the same for everyone. A person in abject poverty gets the same prebate as Bill Gates.

That, in a nutshell, is the Fair Tax.

In subsequent posts, I will discuss some of the difficulties in implementing the Fair Tax. But let's get the ball rolling with your thoughts first.

Excellent, informative thread you started. Thanks!
 
If I understand 'Fair Tax' - i.e switching to sales tax only correctly, the problem is that people with higher incomes receive considerably more money than they need for consumption. They would have the option of simply not spending their money...they could squirrel it away in savings accounts or just invest it in stocks or bonds.

I guess that if there sales tax were applied equally to all equity purchases it may be O.K., but it just seems that anyone at the low end of the income scale...who lives pay check to pay check...would be paying a tax on their full income, where as the wealthy would have the option of just not spending money.
If it was done correctly there would be no tax on groceries, clothes, shoes, and prescriptions.

Rich people will always spend more than poor people and they will always buy more expensive things.
 
The first and foremost basis for taxation should be determining how much money the government needs to fulfill it's obligations (what those obligations should be is open to debate)

Second they need to have a tax policy that ensures that the government has enough money to fulfill those obligations AND to pay down it's debt at a reasonable rate.

Unfortunately for the wealthy, you can't squeeze blood from a rock. You can't get money from people who don't have money. That means that it's the wealthiest that will have to pay the lion's share.

I believe that anyone that makes more than a doctor or even as much is getting way more money than they deserve. So I don't have any qualms about taxing the daylights out of the wealthiest.
 
If I understand 'Fair Tax' - i.e switching to sales tax only correctly, the problem is that people with higher incomes receive considerably more money than they need for consumption. They would have the option of simply not spending their money...they could squirrel it away in savings accounts or just invest it in stocks or bonds.

I guess that if there sales tax were applied equally to all equity purchases it may be O.K., but it just seems that anyone at the low end of the income scale...who lives pay check to pay check...would be paying a tax on their full income, where as the wealthy would have the option of just not spending money.
If it was done correctly there would be no tax on groceries, clothes, shoes, and prescriptions.

Rich people will always spend more than poor people and they will always buy more expensive things.


There's an old saying:

"If you're rich, make people believe that you're poor. If you're poor, make people believe that you're rich." (Or something like that).

Not all wealthy people are fanatic consumers. The smart ones are careful not to flaunt their wealth.

So it's not true that they will buy more expensive things.

On the other hand I've known plenty of people who are not wealthy, but by using credit, spend way beyond their means in order to appear wealthy.

This works particularly well for attracting females!
 
The first and foremost basis for taxation should be determining how much money the government needs to fulfill it's obligations (what those obligations should be is open to debate)

Second they need to have a tax policy that ensures that the government has enough money to fulfill those obligations AND to pay down it's debt at a reasonable rate.

Unfortunately for the wealthy, you can't squeeze blood from a rock. You can't get money from people who don't have money. That means that it's the wealthiest that will have to pay the lion's share.

I believe that anyone that makes more than a doctor or even as much is getting way more money than they deserve. So I don't have any qualms about taxing the daylights out of the wealthiest.

I disagree.

No one should be denied the fruits of their own labor.
Why should the guy who never aspires to be more than a bag boy be treated any differently than a guy who paid risked everything he owns to start a business?

If we are going to have an income tax it should be a flat tax.
The consumption tax is OK if it's done right.
 
If I understand 'Fair Tax' - i.e switching to sales tax only correctly, the problem is that people with higher incomes receive considerably more money than they need for consumption. They would have the option of simply not spending their money...they could squirrel it away in savings accounts or just invest it in stocks or bonds.

I guess that if there sales tax were applied equally to all equity purchases it may be O.K., but it just seems that anyone at the low end of the income scale...who lives pay check to pay check...would be paying a tax on their full income, where as the wealthy would have the option of just not spending money.
If it was done correctly there would be no tax on groceries, clothes, shoes, and prescriptions.

Rich people will always spend more than poor people and they will always buy more expensive things.


There's an old saying:

"If you're rich, make people believe that you're poor. If you're poor, make people believe that you're rich." (Or something like that).

Not all wealthy people are fanatic consumers. The smart ones are careful not to flaunt their wealth.

So it's not true that they will buy more expensive things.

On the other hand I've known plenty of people who are not wealthy, but by using credit, spend way beyond their means in order to appear wealthy.

This works particularly well for attracting females!

Then the former are smart and the latter are stupid.

No need to treat them any differently when it comes to taxation
 
The first and foremost basis for taxation should be determining how much money the government needs to fulfill it's obligations (what those obligations should be is open to debate)

Second they need to have a tax policy that ensures that the government has enough money to fulfill those obligations AND to pay down it's debt at a reasonable rate.

Unfortunately for the wealthy, you can't squeeze blood from a rock. You can't get money from people who don't have money. That means that it's the wealthiest that will have to pay the lion's share.

I believe that anyone that makes more than a doctor or even as much is getting way more money than they deserve. So I don't have any qualms about taxing the daylights out of the wealthiest.

I disagree.

No one should be denied the fruits of their own labor.
Why should the guy who never aspires to be more than a bag boy be treated any differently than a guy who paid risked everything he owns to start a business?

If we are going to have an income tax it should be a flat tax.
The consumption tax is OK if it's done right.

I agree no one should be denied the fruits of their own labor. They should be denied the fruit of other people's labor.

If they were denied the fruits of other people's labor, no one would be wealthier than doctors.

Why should someone that risks his wealth be entitled? If he's truly 'risking' then he hasn't done his due diligence and he deserves to lose his wealth. If he has done due diligence, then he's not really risking.
 
If I understand 'Fair Tax' - i.e switching to sales tax only correctly, the problem is that people with higher incomes receive considerably more money than they need for consumption. They would have the option of simply not spending their money...they could squirrel it away in savings accounts or just invest it in stocks or bonds.

I guess that if there sales tax were applied equally to all equity purchases it may be O.K., but it just seems that anyone at the low end of the income scale...who lives pay check to pay check...would be paying a tax on their full income, where as the wealthy would have the option of just not spending money.
If it was done correctly there would be no tax on groceries, clothes, shoes, and prescriptions.

Rich people will always spend more than poor people and they will always buy more expensive things.

One also has to remember that services can be consumption, not just products.

What would probably be required is re-structuring how investment advice and implementation is paid for so the cost of the broker or trading house's services could be taxed, while not taxing the "fruit" of said investment, which is a form of income.
 

Forum List

Back
Top