50 Reasons to Support the Fair Tax

taeric said:
Now you are defending something different. I never said rich people are evil. I said this would widen the gap. Either keep to that point, or concede it. Do not shift it to something I am not argueing.

And do you really think the "fair tax" will not have loopholes? Do you really think there will be less paperwork? Do you really think it will remain simple?

First I'll stick to one of those. How will it require less paperwork? Do you not acknowledge that we would still have to report our earnings somewhere? Why not?
Click to expand...
I think he was just commenting on the "rich get richer" attitude. That there is nothing wrong with people gaining wealth. In a way it's what everyone should strive for. Course we all define wealth differently.... :eek:

I'm sure there will be loopholes. There will always be loopholes in any plan that is put into place. The goal is to have a system that fair and more efficient. So far I believe the fair tax is the best option out there, and certainly better than the mess we have now. Perhaps one day a better plan will be proposed, but at the moment I believe this is the best out there.

The fair tax proposal as it stands now will not require anyone to report earnings. There is no reason to when your basing prebates on the poverty level. I haven't looked into the details too much, but I'm guessing we would need to report dependents. But considering the paper jungle that's in place now with having to prove earnings, tax deductions, both federally and with states (who all have their own types of taxation) all the advelorum taxes we pay on our cars, the sales tax we already deal with......I don't see how this wouldn't lighten the amount of paperwork. :confused:
 
Sarcasmo said:
If he says it's good it has to be bad. :(
Click to expand...

No, he realizes that it would make him a killing. Donations aren't taxed anymore with this, right? Well, guess what. He wouldn't have to buy that new car, just "listen" to some lobbyists. The flight ticket to the Carribean? It wasn't sold, it was given. :)
 
Pandora said:
The fair tax proposal as it stands now will not require anyone to report earnings. There is no reason to when your basing prebates on the poverty level. I haven't looked into the details too much, but I'm guessing we would need to report dependents. But considering the paper jungle that's in place now with having to prove earnings, tax deductions, both federally and with states (who all have their own types of taxation) all the advelorum taxes we pay on our cars, the sales tax we already deal with......I don't see how this wouldn't lighten the amount of paperwork. :confused:
Click to expand...

You are misunderstanding. I didn't mean to say that the fair tax would require earnings to be reported. I'm saying our economy would. We have an economy that is currently based on how much you can burrow. How is that determined? A combination of how much you have and how much you make. Currently this is piggybacked on the tax system, if that goes away, the paper trail doesn't. It just changes purpose. (Or, rather, it loses one.)
 
Coqui said:
Something not really covered from what I can see, what happens with school funding? Or will mortgage taxes still be intact?
Click to expand...
It doesn't change disbursements of tax dollars, only the way they are recieved.
 
taeric said:
No, he realizes that it would make him a killing. Donations aren't taxed anymore with this, right? Well, guess what. He wouldn't have to buy that new car, just "listen" to some lobbyists. The flight ticket to the Carribean? It wasn't sold, it was given. :)
Click to expand...

I'm sure there would still be regulations in place when it comes to 'gifts'.

taeric said:
You are misunderstanding. I didn't mean to say that the fair tax would require earnings to be reported. I'm saying our economy would. We have an economy that is currently based on how much you can burrow. How is that determined? A combination of how much you have and how much you make. Currently this is piggybacked on the tax system, if that goes away, the paper trail doesn't. It just changes purpose. (Or, rather, it loses one.)
Click to expand...
Well that is something that an individual can determine for themselves. Whenever I borrow money I have to report my earnings, that's just a part of doing business. They might have to make some changes in how that's done, but businesses should be able to change anyway. But it's one thing for the government to require it and it's another thing for a business to require it in order for you to do business with them. With the latter you actually have a choice in the matter, and you don't have to face stiff penalties such as backtaxes or jailtime.

And just because every detail isn't ironed out NOW doesn't mean that you can't support the concept. I don't think there will ever be a tax system that is completely infallible to the corrupt. There are waaaaay to many cooks in the kitchen for that to be possible. But that doesn't mean that we should do nothing to improve the tax system.
 
SpangeMonkee said:
I've been all for the fair tax plan for several years now. It just makes sense. I don't see why other people don't get it.

/me waits for Pandora to enter this thread so he can high-five her.
Click to expand...

WOOT!

glovehi5.jpg
 
Pandora said:
I'm sure there would still be regulations in place when it comes to 'gifts'.
Click to expand...

One of the main benefits listed at the beginning of the thread is that there would be no regulating gifts. Either they are or they are not. It is a bad idea to regulate them with regards to one class of person but not another. :)

Unless you are going to say gifts can only be done to certain organizations without regulation. Then we are back to tax-exempt organization.

And what if I own a software company and my brother is a senator. I can legally give him gifts because he is family. Right? Why not?

Pandora said:
Well that is something that an individual can determine for themselves. Whenever I borrow money I have to report my earnings, that's just a part of doing business. They might have to make some changes in how that's done, but businesses should be able to change anyway. But it's one thing for the government to require it and it's another thing for a business to require it in order for you to do business with them. With the latter you actually have a choice in the matter, and you don't have to face stiff penalties such as backtaxes or jailtime.
Click to expand...

Whenever you go to burrow money and report your income, that is usually compared with other paper trails out there. THey aren't just blindly taking your word for it.

You are right, though. This could all be controlled by a private company. That has it's own set of problems, though.

Pandora said:
And just because every detail isn't ironed out NOW doesn't mean that you can't support the concept. I don't think there will ever be a tax system that is completely infallible to the corrupt. There are waaaaay to many cooks in the kitchen for that to be possible. But that doesn't mean that we should do nothing to improve the tax system.
Click to expand...

Uh.... you're asking me to vote for it NOW. Not after everything has been ironed out.

With a system as delicate as our tax system. The fewer changes the better. That is probably true with any legislation. Just look at what happened when Alabama tried to remove "ass, donkey, and horse" from most of the laws in the books. :)
 
fly said:
It doesn't change disbursements of tax dollars, only the way they are recieved.
Click to expand...

Which is what I'm asking. I get the no income tax, but if it's a flat tax on goods purchsed, will we no longer be paying a yearly tax on property?
 
Dick Armey brought up an interesting point.

Dick Armey said:
All of the above assumes, of course, that we really could replace the income-tax system with a national sales tax. But could we? The roots of the income tax go back to the 16th Amendment, passed in 1916 to authorize the government to levy a tax on individual incomes. In my view, repealing the amendment and ending the income tax for good is, politically, not in the cards. Conservatives in Congress have tried for years to pass a balanced-budget amendment without success. I believe we will eventually succeed, but in the midst of that grueling fight, I believe the notion of getting 290 members of the House, 67 members of the Senate, and three quarters of the states to repeal the 16th Amendment is a dream.

And that is perhaps the best argument against the sales tax. If we try to exchange an income tax for a sales tax, we could easily end up with both. It would be a tragic irony if conservatives who favor a smaller government unwittingly provide the liberals with a comprehensive new taxing authority without eliminating the old one.
Click to expand...
 
Coqui said:
Which is what I'm asking. I get the no income tax, but if it's a flat tax on goods purchsed, will we no longer be paying a yearly tax on property?
Click to expand...
That is correct. I would assume it would only be when you bought MORE property.
 
fly said:
hmmm. Very interesting.

Especially since the Fair Tax act and the 16th amendment repeal would have to be 2 seperate things...
Click to expand...
That would be HILARIOUS, and I would move to Canada.
 
taeric said:
Would you really be surprised?
Click to expand...
Nope, I was going to post about that earlier but I figured we wanted logical reasons why it wouldnt work, not oblique consequences.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back