FlamingGlory said:Why not post the downsides? Cant come up with any since I just rolled out of bed but a list of all pros automatically reeks.
fly said:The complexity in this "simple plan" comes in when its deemed what is an end user consumable.
fly said:The complexity in this "simple plan" comes in when its deemed what is an end user consumable.
Sarcasmo said:OF COURSE the site that supports it is going to hail its benefits. Do you really expect them to say "This plan sucks though on these points: ..." That's where forums and discussions come in. Voters are the ones who bring up the downsides of legislation, not the legislators who want the stuff passed regardless.
Sarcasmo said:So let's discuss it. How would it widen the gap between the rich and the poor? How would it NOT eliminate paperwork for 90% of the population if no one is mailing in tax forms? I don't recall it saying all paperwork everywhere would be abolished, but let's face it: most of 300 million people not having to worry about a tax return is pretty significant volumes of paper.
why_ask_why said:didn't have time to read them all but I'm familiar enough with the concept to say I would support it
FlamingGlory said:It's 23% sales tax. They tax your spending vis a vis your earning. All in return for at one point in time getting to see all the money you make and doing away with paperwork. Insane shizzle.
Not to mention that then we would have State Income Tax, State Sales Tax, County Sales Tax, and Federal Sales Tax.
Actually everything I've seen says it would increase state debt because there simply wouldnt be as many federal subsidies. States can pretty much do what they like when it comes to taxing you so I wouldnt be horribly surprised to see you get taxed on the earned and spent money.Sarcasmo said:Doesn't sound insane to me. Right now I get taxed regardless. This tax would apply only when I choose it to. If I want to sit home and watch t.v. and not spend money, I can. Again, right now I spend the money regardless. And the state taxes wouldn't piggyback the federal one, from what I understand. The federal government would be paying the states .0025% back to provide them incentive not to do so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_taxCoqui said:I can't honestly find a site that truly lists cons of the fair tax. I'm still looking though
taeric said:If I give a presentation about why I think a solution is better, I had better show that i have foreseen the problems that will come from it.
I've already said how it would widen the gap. It makes it easier to make money for those that are not spending a large percentage of their income on consumables. This is actually given as a benefit on the site.
taeric said:And people would still have to do some sort of "tax" return. We would simply change it to be called an earnings certificate. Too much of how our economy is setup requires knowing how much money you can burrow. That is based directly on how much you make. This is determined by many institutes based on this paperwork.
taeric said:Further questions. When is a consumable taxed? When it is sold to the retail store, or when it is sold to an end buyer?
If it is when it is sold to a retail store, what happens when the good is not sold on and is returned? Do we refund the store? Further, what about resellers? If you go to a reseller store, are those places tax free now? If not, is this good not getting taxed doubly?
If it is when it is sold to the end user, what is to stop many store owners from giving themselves benefits in the form of merchandise? This would be great for small business owners, because then the merchandise is simply an expense for the business that they use in normal operation.
Sarcasmo said:Oh shit, Tom DeLay supports this. Never mind, I'm against it.
Drool-Boy said:bahaha that fukrs so crooked he has to screw his boots on
Sarcasmo said:Poor people will never be able to buy big screen t.v.s and stuff like that. That's the definition of poor, really. But if they retain their full income and receive prebates from the government they certainly have more spending money. Necessities are untaxed, so that's not an issue, leaving the stuff they don't need but rather want, and that's life. I can't afford the things I want but that doesn't mean the gap is widening. But seriously, I think the government will still offer them incentives and whatnot, especially considering the Fair Tax plan would be taxing tourists (federally), illegals, and criminals too, something that doesn't currently happen (or rather isn't feasibly enforceable) and something that will add untold billions to our econonmy. In theory, naturally.
Sarcasmo said:That could easily be done electronically.
Sarcasmo said:I've asked myself those same questions (except for that last one, I didn't consider that one), and am currently trying to find the answers. Those are only some of the questions I've got, but overall they aren't enough to make me vote down this proposal. I'd like more info, but that's why we're all here I guess.
Sarcasmo said:If he says it's good it has to be bad.