The Fair Tax Book!!!

TroyD

ugh, whatever.

The fact is that personal income, adjusted for inflation ROSE for ALL income brackets during the 1980's.

The the Tax reforms of the 1980's, particularly 1986 shifted more of the tax burden from individual to businesses.

The unemployment statistics are misleading because you aren't taking into consideration population statistics.

The point I'm making is that the lower class lost ground in the 1980's is patently untrue and you've provided no statistics to prove otherwise.

I know how the tax system gets rounded, however, the undeniable truth is a sales tax is REGRESSIVE. A SALES tax is particulary nasty in terms of it's regressiveness AND how it's applied. That's a fact, jack.


BDT

unc2701

TroyD wrote:

The unemployment statistics are misleading because you aren't taking into consideration population statistics.

The numbers he quoted do take that into account- I found similar figures through the CPS, which is typically more accurate than the census.

BTW- I'm not taking sides in this, just trying to keep the numbers accurate.

TroyD

Ok, I'll grant you the unemployment stats as I don't know and it wasn't what I was talking about in the first place.

However, if you asked my parents and a lot of other parents how things were for them from 1970-1980 or 1980-1990.....my guess is that they probably did better from 1980-1990.

BDT

jdhdiggs

Troy, it wasn't directed at you hoss, sorry to confuse you. Lord knows I agree with you on this topic.

Spawndn72

I think something that skews the numbers from the 70's to the 80's is the fact that most women went from being housewives to working mothers in the late 70's early 80's.

Mike682

aaharvel wrote:

I'm a simple college student with not alot of money and i'm ready to do my part by paying taxes to make the small things that we don't notice on a day to day basis- things that most countries can only dream of having to available to the next generation.

That's commendable, however, ready or not, you have no choice but to pay taxes, ...

Hey, I don't mind paying taxes, they do have their purpose. I just want to pay less

jdhdiggs

Yup, just wait until your lucky enough to have an income tax bill of $22K and you owe $10K for realestate taxes (not counting social security, sales, state income, etc...). All of a sudden you realize how much fun taxes are.

Another idea: When you file your taxes, you get to pick where the funds go. Give the people around 50 or so options and you fill out the %'s, just like most 401K's. At least it would be the will of the people and not congress. Congress gets to do whatever the hell they want with the corporate money though.

unc2701

jdhdiggs wrote:

Another idea: When you file your taxes, you get to pick where the funds go. Give the people around 50 or so options and you fill out the %'s, just like most 401K's.

I like that... Military spending will drop like a rock; medicine, education & highways will skyrocket.

TroyD

I'm a simple college student with not alot of money and i'm ready to do my part by paying taxes to make the small things that we don't notice on a day to day basis- things that most countries can only dream of having to available to the next generation

A noble idea to be sure, however, there are a couple of issues with that.

One, no one has or ever will agree what those 'small things' are.

Two, it was never the intent of the founders of our country for the government to be guarantor of all of our wants and needs. It isn't the role of government to redistribute wealth. That's a socialistic concept.

BDT

PhantomOG

how would you regulate imported products? just seems like there would be many easy ways for the wealthy to get around a national sales tax.

jdhdiggs

unc2701 wrote:

I like that... Military spending will drop like a rock; medicine, education & highways will skyrocket.

That's the idea, personally, I wouldn't support a federal education policy except for post-secondary education and medical research, insurance, etc... does very well privatized so that would be out, but I would support national defense. so yeah, overall I think it would be cool to actually say "Thank God my tax dollars didn't go to THAT!" For the lazy folks, they just check a status quo box.

LiquidSound

First off, it's not a "flat tax". Read the book everyone. Also go here www.fairtax.org or call Neal Boortz @ 1 877 310 2100 8:30 am to 1 pm weekdays.
If we don't have to invest time/money/life to sync up with the tax code. Or pay income taxes..the country will have more capitol. If we have more money, we'll spend it. It's the American way. Businesses will have a much better time doing business. They won't need to go outside of the country to avoid our corrupt and impossibly difficult tax system. Jobs will come home. Plus, with such a lucrative atmosphere, companies from other countries will come here to do business. That means more jobs. The country will thrive..life will be better.
If we as a country have more money, we'll spend it. That's where the government will get its money.
There will be a tax increase on products..but!..if individuals, companies, the entire country doesn't have to spend billions *that's with a b* of hours and dollars to sync up with an impossible tax system, the price of products will fall. Less overhead. If it takes less to produce products, prices will drop. Companies are competitive..if they can undercut the other guy, they will. According to the book, we'll spend about the same for products as we do now. Want answers?? Get the book. You'll learn too much.

LiquidSound

Oh, and you'll hear about the "low income" families getting hit the worst. Not true. Everyone will be paying the same amount of tax on products. They'll keep all of their paycheck, not to mention the "prebate"..so they'll have more money.

aaharvel

TroyD wrote:

Ok, I'll grant you the unemployment stats as I don't know and it wasn't what I was talking about in the first place.

However, if you asked my parents and a lot of other parents how things were for them from 1970-1980 or 1980-1990.....my guess is that they probably did better from 1980-1990.

BDT

right on. everyone did.

Compared with the 70's, even with the 82 and 87 crisis' we ALL were better off.

I thought you were saying the 80's were superior to the 70's AND the 90's.
Of course, the 90's were more prosperous.

scottnbnj

aaharvel wrote:

In the 1980's, the "misery index" (also known as unemployment plus inflation) -- increased 20 percent for the first time since World War II. Admittedly, alot of that blame should be placed on the 70's and the 2 oil crisis'- the last one being in 1979.

uh,.. i think the jump you ~might~ be talking about was from the year 79 to 80, not through the 80's. from 80-86 it went down sharply. anyway, here's a pic that might help:

http://www.miseryindex.us/indexbyyear.asp

)

Pablo

I haven't read the book yet, but heard a lot about this fair tax and did a little research on the net and I think it's a great idea. Saves us a ton on just doing taxes (it costs me about $1000). Average taxes remain the same, the cost of goods may even come down, and may bring foriegn companies back to the US. Plus, if you don't want to pay taxes, don't buy anything.

As far as the poor getting hit hard, the whole idea is to hit everyone the same. The poor (everyone actually) get a rebate for the normal expenses for everyday life (food, clothes, ect), so the poor will pay no more than they do now (if not less).

The rich actually will end up getting hit hard because all the loop holes are taken away (I don't see Barbara Streisand [spl.] buying a used fur).

And as an added bonus, people that get around paying any taxes (like drug dealers, cash **** places, and people that live off of "daddy's money") will have to pay like everyone else (I don't see a coke dealer driving a used Escalde).

aaharvel

scottnbnj wrote:

uh,.. i think the jump you ~might~ be talking about was from the year 79 to 80, not through the 80's. from 80-86 it went down sharply. anyway, here's a pic that might help:

http://www.miseryindex.us/indexbyyear.asp

)

right on. 1979-1980. right after the 2nd oil crisis.
thanks Scott.

jdhdiggs

Rich getting hit hard? No way!

Look at it this way, if you make $150K/yr, you might spend $75K, the rest is in savings. Chances are that if you make $24K, you probably spend $24K thus the poor guy gets taxed on 100% of his income (minus the prebate) while the rich guy gets taxed on only half of it.

When you start talking the super rich, it's even worse. How much money do you think someone like Oprah spends in a year? 1 maybe 2 million? On an income of $100 million. She'll be stoked with this new plan.

Loop holes for the rich really are not as big as the media would have you believe, especially with the new minimum tax setup. Companies can hide money, but individuals have a much harder time hiding legitimate incomes.

If you do not have a progressive tax system, then it is, by definition, regressive.

LiquidSound

And so what if the rich get to keep more of their money. When's the last time you got a steady job from a poor person? It's businesses that keep our country rolling. If they have more money, they'll invest it in their business in order to grow it. In order to make more money. Disagree? I didn't think so.
Big businesses have more capitol to grow. Small businesses have more capitol to grow. Poor people have more money to spend..hell, the entire country would have more money to spend..and they will spend it. Period.
If you had extra income *EDIT:got to keep all the money you actually earn*, would you buy a new set of Polks? I thought so.
As far as loopholes, the tax system won't be swiss cheese like it is now. The more complex the system, the easier it is to cheat. The less complex, the less easy. There will always be cheaters..but if you reduce the chance of cheating by a significant number, we all win. When someone cheats on taxes, the government loses money..right? Well, do you think they just let it slide. Lose a little money here and there but turn a blind eye? Not a chance. The money they lose is extracted from you and me.

jdhdiggs

I thought you didn't believe in trickle down economics?

Yes, I'd get to keep everything I earned and would pay much higher consumer prices on top of it. You also don't think that companies will hide that tax money? They can do it a lot easier than a rich individual can.

Reading one book on taxes does not make one an expert. You think that the author was unbiased in the statistics and facts used to back up his ideas? Go study up on some Keynesian and classical economic models for the macro economy and how/what this plan really affects. Have you ever heard the term "zero sum game"-This is one. The government will still get the same amount of money, they will still spend the same to enforce it by moving investigation of individuals to investigating companies. The only thing you have done is moved the purchasing power of groups around.

As people having more money, what a farce. Their purchasing power will remain relatively unchanged. Poor will have less, rich a bit more, but overall it will remain close to stagnent. If I make $2 million a year, what good does it do with $4,000 gallons of milk?

BTW: Where's social security go?

Oh, and don't get me wrong, I would love to have my taxes reduced to below half their current level with this plan. That would be great, but paying $10 for a big mac seems a bit out of line...

LiquidSound

I'm no expert, never claimed to be..and I never said I didn't believe in trickle down economics. If you don't like these ideas, call up Boortz. Tell him why he's wrong. 1 877 310 2100 8:30 am to 1 pm weekdays. Let us know how it goes. Oh, and read the book.

BTW, the tax rate increase will be 23%. With the 22% imbedded tax removed from the products, your 4 grand gallon of milk, or 10 dollar bigmac doesn't equate.

LiquidSound

The Fair Tax Plan is taking shots. I'm happy to see it! The only way to temper steel is by extremes. If this won't work, it will take these shots to prove it. If it does, it will take these shots to prove it.

jdhdiggs

The national sales tax thing has been discussed since the 70's. Here is the biggest problem: The super-rich buy all their toys outside the US and play outside the US with this plan. Under the current system, as long as they are a US citizen, they must pay on their income to the US. Meanwhile, the poor are stuck here buying things like clothes and food and are now forced to pay the burdon of the rich who escaped.

My personal tax bill would be reduced by about 66% (Live well below means) at the 22% number you listed. Bill Gates' might be reduced 99% or more. Since it is a zero sum game, someone else needs to make up for it. How do you force people to spend money?

Prebates? That's the effort to make it a non-regressive tax. Too bad it causes the very thing he's trying to eliminate. Now the government pays you money so it can tax you on that same money back. Perfect govenrment efficiency...

Debate is good, but this idea is horribly regressive and this has been proven numerous times in various debate forums and academic circles. This book is merely an idea but does not address it's own inadequacies and should definately not be taken as gospel. Notice the only attacks on itself that it refutes are the one's its able to.

Just some thoughts. With that, I'm outta here! It's Miller time!

PhantomOG

jdhdiggs wrote:

The national sales tax thing has been discussed since the 70's. Here is the biggest problem: The super-rich buy all their toys outside the US and play outside the US with this plan. Under the current system, as long as they are a US citizen, they must pay on their income to the US. Meanwhile, the poor are stuck here buying things like clothes and food and are now forced to pay the burdon of the rich who escaped.

My personal tax bill would be reduced by about 66% (Live well below means) at the 22% number you listed. Bill Gates' might be reduced 99% or more. Since it is a zero sum game, someone else needs to make up for it. How do you force people to spend money?

Prebates? That's the effort to make it a non-regressive tax. Too bad it causes the very thing he's trying to eliminate. Now the government pays you money so it can tax you on that same money back. Perfect govenrment efficiency...

Debate is good, but this idea is horribly regressive and this has been proven numerous times in various debate forums and academic circles. This book is merely an idea but does not address it's own inadequacies and should definately not be taken as gospel. Notice the only attacks on itself that it refutes are the one's its able to.

Just some thoughts. With that, I'm outta here! It's Miller time!

exactly.

LiquidSound

"This book is merely an idea but does not address it's own inadequacies and should definately not be taken as gospel.Notice the only attacks on itself that it refutes are the one's its able to." So, you've read it already? That was fast. Since you've read the book..are you going to call Boortz now and tell him why it won't work? You seem to have quite an arguement. He would love and welcome your challenge..I guarantee.
"The super-rich buy all their toys outside the US and play outside the US with this plan." When, where, and how long was the plan enacted and set into motion? Where are the studies of the super-rich buying and playing habits under this plan during its life?
Happy Miller Time. I think I'll do the same myself.

Demiurge

This thread is so tempting....

PhantomOG

LiquidSound wrote:

"The super-rich buy all their toys outside the US and play outside the US with this plan." When, where, and how long was the plan enacted and set into motion? Where are the studies of the super-rich buying and playing habits under this plan during its life?
Happy Miller Time. I think I'll do the same myself.

Studies? Do you need a study to tell you that people will buy products wherever they can at the lowest price? Ever heard of a thing called the internet??? People buy tons of products now online in order to avoid paying sales tax. You don't think people with enough spending power would buy overseas to avoid a paying a national sales tax on expensive items?

No, I'm sure they would buy their luxury cars and high-dollar suits here in the U.S. so they can pay millions in taxes out of the goodness of their hearts. :rolleyes:

MacLeod

As is typical of those that trash Reagonomics, you forgot to do one very important thing; look at those numbers in 1980. In 1979 the average unemployment rate was 6% but rose to 10.75% by 1982 thanks to Carter and Nixon and the democrat controlled congress and the conficatory tax rate. Now Reagan's policies had only been in effect barely a year but once they took hold the rate dropped steadily to 5.25% in 1988! Not real sure where you got the 7.9% but thats still better than 10.75%! In case you doubt me, my source is the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

In 1979 the interest rate was 12% and rose to a high of 14% by mid 1981. Thanks to trickle down ecomonomics the rate was back down to 6% by 1988.

In 1979 the top marginal tax rate was 70%!!!!! By 1988 it was down to 28% and yet the income to the treasury DOUBLED over those 8 years.

There is no logical way to deny that trickle down ecomonomics or Reaganomics does not work. Considering the mess he found when he took office and the direction the economy was headed, his simple theory of supply side economics worked, again. Worked when JFK tried it, worked when Reagan tried it, worked when Putin (yes in Russia) tried it and its working now that Bush has tried it.

LiquidSound

Come on in Demiurge. Your presence is welcomed. Have you read the book?

Do I think that every sale that occurs of expensive items will happen in the states? No. Does every sale of expensive items occur overseas? No. He stated the stance as if it's already occured. I'm curious as to when, where, how long and where can we see numbers.
So what if the super-rich buy stuff cheaply elsewhere. I don't blame them. *Our entire economy is not ultimately ruled by the purchases of toys by the super-rich* The deal is, if we have an extremely lucrative system, more lucrative than abroad, businesses will come home. New jobs will present themselves. The public will have more money because of keeping their entire paycheck, revenues will increase, taxes paid will increase. Also, all the businesses from other countries that will come to our country to take advantage of our tax system. That means more jobs, more supplies, more spending. Buying toys overseas won't negate all of that progress. What happens when those other countries become less lucrative to do business in? They'll have to compete by matching our system. Their countries will flourish as well. The entire world will benefit.
Just because one group doesn't add to the mix with their ultra toy buying habits doesn't mean they won't spend any money whatsoever in the states. If they live here, they'll spend money here. They have to supply their businesses if they own them. They'll have to buy gas/supplies for their toys. They'll have to hire people to take care of their homes and toys. They will spend money here..period. No? Also, lots of the super-rich are investors. Many of them invest in american companies. They will spend their money in the companies they invest in because it helps their investments. I'm not super-rich by any means..but I am an investor. When possible, I spend my money with the companies I invest in. I'm no investment whiz..but I know how to help my bottom line. :cool:

BTW: under the Fair Tax, internet sales will be taxed just like everything else will.

LiquidSound

Here's the actual bill. The Fair Tax Bill

FAQ

Economists' Endorsement