50 Reasons to Support the Fair Tax

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.
 
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.

You know... I think that is what gets me against the fair tax more than anything. It is being put forth as a flawless solution.

And I already listed a few things I don't like about it. Easy to see loopholes. Widening gap between rich and poor. Fake elimination of paperwork. (In that it doesn't actually get rid of it.)

The largest thing getting me against it, though, is the propoganda. I bloody hate agenda pushing crap that tries to appeal to better sense. Comparing this to women's right to vote, France sucking, and other crap like that is just plain annoying. I can't believe the current tax system was not compared to Hitler somehow on that site.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.



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. :)
 
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.
 
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.


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.
 
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.
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.

Nothing also discusses the market shock resulting from an overnight 23% price jump in /all/ goods.
 
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.

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.

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.

That could easily be done electronically.

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. :)

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.
 
Last edited:
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.

Define necessities. The site you linked said everything would be taxed. No exceptions. Specifically, it mentioned food as taxed.

And the whole crux here is that I think this would greatly widen the difference between the classes. If you want to see a case where that is a bad thing, look at New Orleans.


Sarcasmo said:
That could easily be done electronically.

You do realize a lot of that is done electronically today, right? It is still considered paperwork. :)

Further, a physical copy would probably still be required. Take a look at all of the electronic voting fiascos.


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.

They are enough to make me vote it down because it has clearly not been thought out. This is simply an easy way for people with high incomes to greatly reduce the amount of money they are taxed on.

Further, it is trying to solve the whole tax system problem without learning the lessons that were learned the last go round. If there is the chance for loopholes or tough to enforce rules, then they will be exploited. Period. What does this do to address that?

And no, calling paper pushers people that don't contribute to society does not make me want to vote for this. Nor does comparing the current system to what France does.