Got my W-2 today ...

It's fairly simple.

Those at or below the poverty line need to spend all or almost all of their income. They would be taxed on 100 percent of what they make.

The upper class -- who can already find accountants to hide their money, and would most certainly do so even better under a system like this -- need to spend only a small percentage of their income. They would be taxed on less than 50 percent of what they make.

That is inherently unfair.

 

I think one of the assumptions is that if you're rich or at least upper-middle class, you'll spend a lot more than you "need" to, thus fattening the coffers. Few people, unless you're a family of 20 or the leader of a cult compound, needs to have a house larger than 2-3,000 square feet or so. Doesn't stop people from building seven-to-eight-figure houses big enough to rate a Double A baseball team.

The other thing is, even if they're getting 50 percent of their income taxed, that's still an assload of money. The problem isn't what the rich are getting taxed, it's making sure the poor aren't overtaxed. Thus the prebate and exemptions and other proposals.

 

No.

The truly rich don't SPEND anything. They live off the profits their past profits make.

And their lawyers and accountants would drive holes through a plan like this.

Also, most of those people who appear upper-middle-class are truly middle class and going into hock to appear otherwise.

Taxes need to be progressive. The more you make, the higher percentage you can afford to pay. I still find it truly odd that people don't agree with that.

 

So you're saying that poor people spend all of their money on consumable goods? I doubt that. And after all, the more people in the household, the more money you get in the prebate. Remember, the tax is only paid on new goods bought at the retail level. Not on used things (like cars and houses). I know my wife and I don't spend all of our money on consumable goods bought new. So we would keep more of our money.

And there wouldn't be anyway for accountants to get around the tax. You buy something new, you pay the tax. You don't, you don't. It's pretty clear cut. No deductions for contribution and interest payments and other investments. Meaning, if you want to save, you can. You want to withdraw, you can, cause there wouldn't be a tax penalty for that.

By giving the average person the ability to decide how much of their income goes to the government -- and abolishing a huge part of that system -- would also force the government to rethink things. No more tax breaks to help people get elected. Seems like liberals would like that idea. Everyone pays the same amount, regardless on what they make. Which is inheritently unfair, don't you think?

 

Zeke, rich people don't buy anything? Ever? No food? No clothes? No cars, houses, boats, trips? Nothing ever?

 

The truly rich spend less than their money makes in interest.

Feel free to address why you think the rich should be taxed at a lower rate than the poor.

I'll hang up and listen.

 

The unemployment average in Europe is much higher than it is in the U.S.

A lot of U.S. citizens enjoy traveling in Europe, but they don't have to live there.

In an ideal world, you'd have American income and a European lifestyle -- but that's not possible. You can't have both.

 

Boo-fuckin'-hoo.
If you're worried about how much you get paid, or at least are bitching about it, you don't belong in this business.
One of the first things I learned in J-school was that this business was a callling, not a way to make yourself rich.
If you aren't happy, get out. Find yourself a soul-less PR job.
Someone will gladly (and I mean gladly) take your place.
Too many people are losing their jobs in our business for someone who has one to bitch about what he gets paid.

 

That opens another can of worms.

Nobody really knows how people would react psychologically to the Fair Tax.

With goods suddenly taxed at15%-20%, that $2 quart of milk is now $2.50. Those $25 pair of jeans are now $32.

Seeing these prices may give the consumer sticker shock.

And, with the knowledge that they are in control of how much tax they pay, the consumers might slam the brakes on their spending.

That wouldn't be so awful, because saving money is usually smart . . . on a micro scale.

On a macro scale, it could leave the government with much less revenue than it hoped for, and it could seriously stall the economy.

So is this really a risk worth taking?

 

Damn, you must have expensive taste.

 

The thing is, under the proposal, the tax would be included in the price of the item. They use a $100 pair of jeans as an example (albeit, i think it's a poor example, cause it then raises the argument of 23% versus 30%) that $77 of that $100 goes to the retailer and $23 to the government.

Because you eliminate a lot of silly taxes on business (who don't really pay taxes, since they pass on those costs to consumers and employers) the prices of goods would decrease. Therefore, those savings are passed on to the general public. What happens if producers don't lower prices, you ask? Well, once someone realizes they can gain a greater market share by lowering their prices, thus gaining higher profits, by lowering their prices, free trade would dictate they would. Soon thereafter, others would follow suit.

As to Zeke, what I think is unfair is that ANYONE is taxed based on how much they make. Sure the truly wealthy in the world live mostly off interest and other investments, but they already use that to bypass the current system. Under this tax, it wouldn't matter where the money CAME from, but where it WENT. If you have $1,000,000 and live off the 5% interest every year (that an accountant can find the loopholes to make it tax free now), that $50,000 is taxed at 0%, meaning that person doesn't pay any taxes, while us poor journalists at taxed at 15% of our 25,000 income. Meaning our tax burden is greater than the person that has 40 times more money than us. Is that fair?

Now, under the FairTax, that $50,000 from interest is treated differently. That person has to buy groceries, wouldn't you assume. Now he/she is paying that 23% tax instead of no income tax. Maybe he decides he needs a new Honda cause his previous car's ash trays are full. A new Accord is $20,000, meaning 23% of that goes to taxes. No accountant to write that off as a business expense, cause there wouldn't be deductions cause we wouldn't file anything except what we would have to to get our prebates.

Now, back to us poorer types. We don't buy a new Accord, but buy a used Civic for $8,000. No tax on that, cause it isn't new. Plus, we're probably renting, so we're not paying taxes on that either.

Now both parties are being taxed at an equal rate. And with the prebate, the poor guy is actually receiving a higher percentage return than the guy with more money.

I know it's hard to really wrap your head around at first, but when you read about it and really think about it, you realize how much fairer this tax is than the current system.

 

the 'new - used' thing is a loophole waiting to happen.

how long until the definition of 'used' is twisted and manipulated?


hey, if we were starting with a blank slate the Fair Tax would be worth considering.


but we're dealing with reality. no blank slate - we've got a tax code thicker than tank johnson's rap sheet. it ain't gonna happen. you've got to tinker at the margins.