Fair Tax - a social time bomb?

If the "Fair Tax" idea can't similarly be encapsulated in a few sentence, I have no interest in it or in reading the book.
Click to expand...

I thought the National Sales Tax concept has already been described here. No need to buy or read the book. Plenty of information on the web. It would be arduous to post on the current income tax code I used to have Volume 1 and Volume 2 of the income tax code on my book shelf. Both are the size of unabridged dictionaries.

back to what you do - post exclusively on the Legal forum.
Click to expand...
I post on both the legal and the rifle forum, if you don't mind.

"Read the book" seems like a weak argument.
Click to expand...
As well, "you didn't answer my questions sufficiently to make me understand" isn't an argument either. And I personally don't feel the need to "argue" the point with someone who is too lazy to research the issue on his own and THEN come back and either debate the horrifics of the system or applaud it as better than apple sauce. It is he who posited that it was a "social time bomb." Let him research the studies which both support and detract from his argument and then get back with us. He has not bothered to present data that buoys his premise and then faults us because he can't understand what we've just told him. As I warned before, don't bother with a guy who has 6800 posts. He's not looking for reasonable discourse.

My question has nothing to do with the math of the proposed system but about the mindset of American consumers and their reaction to a change in where they are taxed.
Click to expand...

Funny, nobody was concerned when the income tax was introduced in 1913.

An economist would call the estimation of consumer response "math." It's estimatable if not entirely measurable. Dropping the income tax would by Harvard and NTI drop the cost of goods by the passed-thru income tax by 25-30%. The sales tax then adds 20-25% to the cost. That's a net decrease in price. The goods are more desirable over seas since American companies can sell them without being pre-laiden with income tax. Production goes up. Employment increases (except those involved in tax lobbying, H&R Block, and tax accountants who would then be used in more productive activities).

Let's say manufacturers and distributors don't pass *all* but just *some* of their cost savings along to consumers? What do they do with all that money? Do they put it in a bank? Good. Do they buy a big car or boat? Good. Do they hire more people? Good. Do they buy computers and other tools for their workforce? Good.

Is that your only question/objection to the NSTax?

What happens when people in the most consumer driven, credit seeking economy on earth significantly change their behavior.
Click to expand...
This is why social engineers are so irritating. Their arrogance that someone exercising freedom is a bad thing. What is your evidence that consumers would slow consuming?

who's going to buy a new house and be the one to bear the tax burden
Click to expand...
Like most social engineers, you have no faith in the free market being able to level itself.

I've really wasted too much time on someone who thinks research goes no further than starting a thread on a gun forum.

Rick
 
+ FairTax is easier to understand:

Current tax code: 3.3 trillion words (WSJ Nov. 1, 2005) on 50,000 pages (Jewler's Circular Keystone May 1 2005).
FairTax: 59 pages (www.thomas.loc.gov).

+ FairTax would help the economy:

The economy would see a boost of about 10.5% in the first year alone (Alan Greenspan in the Mar. 12, 2005 Buffalo News).

+ Voluntary taxation:

Don't want to pay taxes? Don't buy anything but the bare minimum, and be reimbursed for the you tax paid.

+ No tax on used items:

That CPO Sig you've been looking at? Tax free!

+ Consumption more stable:

According to American Farm Bureau economist Ross Korves, national consumption has historically been more stable than income.

- FairTax causes double taxation:

Under the FairTax, money that's already in the bank would be double taxed: once when it was earned, then, after the passage of the FairTax, again when it is spent.

- Sticker shock:

At first, that jump will look big.

The double taxation and sticker shock will eventually go away, and, in the case of double taxation, may even be addressed somehow. All told, looks pretty positive.

Behold the basis of a speach that's going to the college National Forensics Association National Tournament in April!
 
But it's not really double taxation since your total tax bill for Year 1 won't be double what it was for year 0. The income tax will be gone.

I don't know that there will be sticker shock since there will be a tremendous downward pressure in prices due to no income tax to pass on (their accountants will know just how much) and competition will dictate it.

What will be a sticker shock is how much federal tax people are paying. And that's what the liberals fear. There will be a second downward pressure for high taxation, and they'll be reminded of it everytime they look at a sales receipt.

Rick
 
Interesting theory, but the fact remains, in Year X with the income tax, there will be a 10,000 tax bill for Joe-Average laundrymat owner and in Year X+1 there will be a (designed-in) revenue-neutral $10,000 tax bill under a National Sales Tax. Assuming Joe buys $40,000 worth of sales-taxable items. But on average, Joe-Average will pay the same unless he turns into a monk.

Rick
 
Last edited:
If, in Japan, interest rates are low because savings are high, then why, in this country, are interest rates also low even though savings rates are low?

Prices of all commodities are set by the market. When the government sets the prices or otherwise has price controls, then the market will not necessarily react the way it is desired. So, the absence or presence of a national sales tax or value added tax has little if any effect on prices generally.

Maybe we should try to raise the necessary tax revenue through import duties. It would have the effect of reducing imports, or should, which would be a good thing for American labor, if anyone is interested. There would be the troublesome problem of imported oil but we can worry about that later.

No one has used the word entitlement so far, or at least I didn't notice it. There are people saying that Social Security is an entitlement and we are being put on notice that such entitlements and other government handouts may be going away. Well, maybe, but in the meantime then, the government should not be entitled to my social security tax and my employer's social security tax. They can't have it both ways.

Will Rogers said this about questions about where the money was going to come from for the new social programs being proposed: "It's going to come from them that's got it!" They never give it up without a fight.

If you aren't progressive, what are you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top