Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: groanup
Thanks, I'll take your kind words as a compliment :-)

So. In your world, is taxing income better than taxing consumption?

Guessing at your meaning when you use these terms, I'd say no. Believe it or not, I do believe taxing consumption to be a superior form of taxation. However, permit me to quibble over the definition of the terms "income" and "consumption". As used by economists, the term "consumption" means "income" less "investment." In that context, I do agree that the taxation of investment is a bad thing. As such, I would support a true consumption tax.

Where I take issue with the FairTax is over the point of collection of the tax (and certain falsehoods under which the FairTax is marketed.)

I prefer replacing the personal and corporate income taxes with a flat consumption tax (excludes investment) paid by individuals from wages with incentives to save otherwise taxable labor income for personal retirement. Call it a "labor income" tax. No withholding; not progressive; uniformly flat rate; taxes due monthly.

The FairTax doesn't incent retirement savings, per se, and it doesn't force Joe Taxpayer to write a monthly check ... instead it makes him feel like he's getting something back by sending him a prebate.

I favor the radical reform of SS/MC (funding and benefits) that reduces and ultimately eliminates the programs in favor of personally funded and owned retirement accounts. I prefer to keep their funding separate from a general tax so as to keep a sharp eye on the programs

The FairTax doesn't address entitlement reform and more importantly, BURIES the funding in the general revenue. BAD IDEA!!!!

I favor the elimination of the Estate/Gift Tax.

This, the FairTax does.

I favor binding the spending of excises to their intended purpose with NO mingling of such funds with "general revenues." If the purpose sunsets (like the funding Spanish American War) then the tax sunsets.

The FairTax does not do this ... it makes no attempt to reform excises at all. I fear excises will become the preferred "sneak-a-tax" under a FairTax regime.

There are other options, but these should give you an idea of the kind of tax/spend reforms I prefer.

Ultimately, however, I believe it more important to spend political capital on spending reduction and entitlement reform than it is on tax reform.

109 posted on 10/19/2006 10:03:06 PM PDT by Dimples
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies ]


To: Dimples
spend political capital on spending reduction and entitlement reform

Please give me one good reason why Congress would ever do that? The top 50% of income earners pay 97% of all income taxes/84% of all federal income taxes are paid by the top 25% of wage earners....meaning we are at a tipping point where soon a minority will be paying all the federal income taxes and a majority will be getting handouts (also, don't forget that entitlement spending..60% of the US budget..is mandatory spending).....please explain to me why Congress will ever stop spending/cut entitlements, when a minority are asking for it. They vote buy with your tax dollars and are not going to stop as long as they can keep taking as much as they want from your pocket via the stealth, very progressive income tax.

What is needed is a choke hold on the money flow to Washington, a tax system that is visible rather than a joke of a 20-60K page tax code that can be tweaked by the very people who will benefit. Talk about a conflict of interest: Congress/the income tax code.
121 posted on 10/20/2006 6:30:02 AM PDT by socialismisinsidious ( The socialist income tax system turns US citizens into beggars or quitters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson