Posted on 12/18/2005 4:46:00 PM PST by FairOpinion
YES! 83% (8832 votes) A consumption tax would be great for the American economy. Do away with complicated income taxes!
NO! 17% (1761) A consumption tax would not be fair for low-income households. Keep the current income tax system!
We'll send your vote to your congressional representative and senators.
lewis, we all know when somebody talks about 23% they are referring to the inclusive calculation of the FairTax rate.
Why do you waste everyone's time on this non-sensicle 23% vs. 30% issue.
We all know what we are talking about. Except possibly you.
The IRS is responsible for checking and auditing over 150 million returns.
The FairTax onle involves businesses, so there are less than 30 million returns.
The FairTax is so much simpler to audit than the Income Tax that the effort involved is trivial.
And this would be done by the IRS. The FairTax bill HR25 makes the States responsible for administrating the FairTax, except if the State is not equiped to do so. 45 States already have the personnel that are collecting their own sales tax, and the FairTax doesn't have all the exceptions that State sales taxes do. So it doesn't look like it will require any additional personnel at the State level.
This effectively means that the Federal Treasury Department doesn't deal with individuals, only with the States.
If poor mothers have to pay a national sales tax when they buy shoes for their kids.
Then rich people should pay a national sales tax when they buy stocks and bonds.
"Companies already know how to handle that. The NST adds a completely different monkey wrench into the mix."
You understand that 45 States have sales taxes and their businesses handle it just fine, right ? It isn't a "completely different" anything.
As far as the Ma & Pop shop goes, you are right. There will be some of that. But the volume of sales that happen through that type of channel, where the business owner is willing to risk his business, is a very small percentage of all retail sales.
The private car sales example you cite happens because there are two individuals involved and no current mechanism for checking it. The FairTax doesn't even apply to used goods, so this particular example doesn't apply. Even buying a used car from a dealer would involve no FairTax. Only NEW items are taxed.
If it bothers you, we could always implement a "snitch reward" system, so Ma & Pop would never be sure if the next customer might turn them in. Personally, I'm not worried enough about it to advocate that.
Stocks and Bonds are a not a consumption item.
They are not "consumed", and when exchanged for money and spent on anything -- caviar or catfood -- the money spent is taxed.
Taxing stocks and bonds would be like taxing that poor mother once when she gets the money and then again when she spends it on the shoes. The FairTax only taxes something ONCE.
"Put forward a country as an example of sucess having switched over from IT to NST."
Texas and Florida operate with only a Sales Tax and no income tax. If you think those don't "qualify" in the same sense as a "country", go look up their GDP and compare to Chile or any one of a hundred other countries. Both Florida and Texas -- if they were independent countries -- are in the top 20 economies worldwide.
Sorry.
"And this would be done by the IRS"
shoud read
"And this would be NOT done by the IRS"
"I am opposed to any attempt to tax income even as a measure to prevent cheating, though it would probably work."
Let's make a deal. That's what Congress does, right ? Here's the deal:
Eliminate SS, Medicare, and Disability as programs funded by taxes. Instead, people will have to purchase the amount of coverage (benefit) they want, just as though they were buying insurance. That eliminates cheating and the income tax, retains the programs as voluntary purchases/investments, and gets us a low FairTax rate to cover all the Genreal Fund obligations.
Don't I wish ;=)
"Exactly. Taxes would reflect the economy. If it roars, government gets big bucks. If it tanks, government has to suffer like the rest of us."
On a related note, this is also why the government likes income taxes. If you income has huge fluctuations, too bad. If your income one year is $150,000 you pay huge income and payroll taxes. Suppose the next two years you were unemployed and had to live off your savings from that great year ? Too bad. Uncle Sam took away the "income averaging" option a long time ago. There was a time when you would have been able to figure your tax as though the income had been $50,000 each year -- putting you in a MUCH lower bracket and a MUCH lower total tax owed.
The FairTax is much fairer in this regard, because you didn't pay tax on the money you saved, you didn't pay until you needed to spend it.
"Your scheme would also create an entire industry of 'phony' corporations which would purchase consumption items 'wholesale' to avoid paying the taxes."
First, being a coporation doesn't mean anything in terms of paying or not paying FairTax. What matters is whether you have a resellers certificate number for the wholesaler to list in his reporting to the State to show why he didn't collect the FairTax.
Second, when the State compares the total value of items purchased tax-free under a particular reseller certificate and does not find the reseller sending them the final tax, it triggers an audit.
Ain't computers and databases wonderful ?
"I still say a LOW FLAT TAX with NO DEDUCTIONS is better."
Which flat tax proposal is that? Bill number, please.
"I have found that many times the name of an idea has little to do with the actual implementation of it. It is more or less just a way to sell it. There are always unintended consequences......"
And I have found that there are always people who oppose change just because it is different and forces them to look at their world (or parts of it) in completely different ways. This is especially true of tax reform. Because our Marxist progressive tax system has been around so long that it has wrapped its tentacles around every aspect of our financial lives, it is very hard for many in our society to "think outside the box" and imagine how our economy could be unleashed and our Founders' vision could be reinstated.
Resistence to change is hard for many of us to understand, especially when it applies to a system such as our tax system, which is broadly recognized as dysfunctional, but it is a powerful force, nonetheless.
After all, the current system started out as a flat tax many years ago now and the AMT is essentially a flat tax now. The income tax is a failed experiment that our Founders never would have countenanced. Perhaps we should heed their warnings after almost 100 years of trying to make an income tax work.
"Taxing stocks and bonds would be like taxing that poor mother once when she gets the money and then again when she spends it on the shoes. The FairTax only taxes something ONCE."
Good answer. I would add that (on a net basis), it only taxes that "poor mother" to the extent she chooses to spend above the poverty level. Presumably, the rich person buying all the stocks and bonds would choose to buy lots more above the poverty level than the "poor mother" and thereby pay a higher tax rate (as well as more in tax dollars) than the "poor mother".
There are many incantations of the notion of a National Sales Tax. The FairTax name refers to a specific plan and it's unique features that make it better and indeed fair to everyone.
Part of the bill (HR 25 / S25) is the repeal of the income tax and a companion bill initiates the repeal of the 16th Amendment which ALLOWS, BUT DOES NOT MANDATE an Income Tax.
Put aside your fears and help us take power back from an overreaching, overly intrusive federal government.
Try asking them if they know that they already pay taxes on their internet purchases.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.