I like the Fair Tax. If you simultaneously eliminate the income tax and instate the Fair Tax and pass a Constitutional amendment that overrides the 16th amendment as being immoral then its a much better idea. Taxing income is immoral, thats why I don’t support the Flat Tax.
I prefer the Fair Tax because everyone would pay the tax, regardless of whether they are employed in the US, working off the books, an illegal alien, a drug dealer or a tourist. Mind you, all these groups still use many of the services available to American’s, like schools, hospitals, roads and highways.
However, I do agree with you with regard to not trusting the government to phase out Income Tax. The government is parasitical. It sells nothing, but takes everything. Once it got the taste of other people’s money, it was hooked like any other addict. I’m afraid there is no going forward or back to normality.
[...] restraint is a necessary precondition for any pro-growth tax reform. If given a choice between a flat tax, national sales tax, value-added tax, or the current system, many Americans want reform, but it is very difficult to have a good tax system if the burden of [...]
[...] restraint is a necessary precondition for any pro-growth tax reform. If given a choice between a flat tax, national sales tax, value-added tax, or the current system, many Americans want reform, but it is very difficult to have a good tax system if the burden of [...]
I prefer a flat corporate tax of 15% and abolish all forms of income tax, sales tax, capital gains tax, estate taxes, and all extraterritorial taxation. I would also suggest the US part take in unilateral free trade and make the entire USA a free trade zone in spite of whatever our trade partners policies maybe me.
In other words I prefer growth and opportunity with some risk, rather than stagnation and immobility that provides a safety net full of holes in it.
I go along with the flat tax and would add that we stop having it deducted from our paycheck automatically. I’m not convinced Congress would not continue to increase the tax regardless of the type.
If folks had to write a check out monthly or quarterly, it is less likely they will become complacent as the rate starts to creep up.
Clearly the moderator is attempting to appear to subscribe to ‘fairness’ which the new proposals are NOT!
What is being advocated in all instances is a tax on CONSUMPTION.
Adam Smith, known as the Father of Captialism, wrote in his seminal work, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, from Book V, Chapter 2, Article I:
“The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess.”
A Consumption tax in any of it’s many forms, sales tax, value-added-tax, fair tax is REGRESSIVE.
The Middle Class and the poor will pay FAR more of their income in these taxes than the wealthy. It is Common Sense and these ‘plans’ are simply a ploy to make the rich richer by not paying tax on the vast majority of their wealth.
No,
they are a ploy to get middle and lower income voters to contribute to the government coffers (i.e. the collective management of wealth) while still being able to hypocritically claim that campaign promises with regards to not increasing the tax burden on the poor and middle class are being adhered to.
This is because you can only tax rich people so much through progressive taxes before significant numbers of them either drop out of the workforce or settle for more modest financial aspirations. Then you not only loose the taxes they pay, but their high value products and services too – and that is, by far, the biggest loss for the public.
So, in a nutshell, progressive income taxes are already squeezing the rich to the point where further increases in taxation will not yield more money for the government (in the mid and long term that is – it takes a bit of time for the rich to modify their behavior in response to changes in the tax burden and for the effect to be felt on GDP). So the only other option left for the government in order to increase its revenue (and spending) past the current 3.5 trillion annual level, is to also start taxing the middle class and the poor. Hence the emerging proposals for VAT, sin taxes, carbon taxes and other indirect taxes that can be hidden so that the “no new taxes for the middle class” campaign promises are not so blatantly violated.
Fair Tax, Flat Tax will hurt both poor and middle class. The rich will love it. The poor need every penny for living expenses. The middle class needs 70% of income for living expenses. The truly rich can get by on 5%-10% of their income for living expenses. If they are truly rich even less. I have no lobby working for me to change laws but rich people do. We need to go back to 1979 max income tax rates of 70%. It could be graduated up to 100 million. The CEO’s making the biggest increases this year are the ones that got rid of the most American workers so their profit could soar. Most Americans still think that Free Trade is good, but it has cost me over $10,000,000. since 1980, when I was in the diamond wholesales business. Free Trade is not free and these ideas are truly biased for the rich.
Ron
[...] an ardent defender of sales tax proposals such as the FAIR tax because it would be a great idea to replace the current system with any low-rate system that gets rid of the tax bias against saving and…. I even narrated this video explaining that a national sales tax and flat tax are different sides [...]
Person 1 earns 25,000 a year. Person 1 pays 500 dollars a month for rent, 200 for food, 200 for utility bills (phone, electricity, heating), 100 for bus pass/train pass, for a total basic expenditure of 1000 per month. A flat tax on his total income of what, 15%, 10%, 12% would be another 257 each month. This leaves Person 1 with less than half of their total income per month, just about 825 dollars. Notice I did not include any costs for spouse, children, clothing, student loan payments, health insurance costs, car payments, car insurance, or savings. Let alone spending money for normal consumer expenditures like entertainment, Christmas shopping, Friday night movies, Monday night football with the guys, getting your nails or hair done with the girls.
Person 2 earns 250,000 a year. Person 1 spends 2250 for a studio apartment in lower Manhattan, however, still probably only spends 200 dollars on food, 200 for utility bills, 100 for the subway pass, apply that same flat income tax (averaged at 12.33%) and he will pay a much greater amount of 2568. This still leaves Person 1 with 15515.33 left over for the month. Again I am not factoring in any peripheral expenses.
So clearly, the 12.33% flat income tax has a much greater impact on Person 1 than Person 2. I think that is discriminatory.
Furthermore, since Person 2 has a greater disposable income, it is likely that Person 2 has a greater ability to use that income to make investments. These investments, if safe, are likely to bring a return. So on top of Person 2′s earned income of 250k you can assume that there are additional incomes collected. Are these additional incomes not earnings that would be taxed as interest, dividends, rental property income, etc? If either Person 1 or Person 2 suddenly earned a windfall inheritance does that count as income to be taxed?
Isn’t it more fair to say that it is discriminatory against Person 1 to charge him the same flat tax as Person 2?
This is a honest scenario and I want to know if what I understand as a flat tax is in fact true. I really would like if anyone can respond for insight and to correct anything (including my math) that I stated about flat tax.
[...] an ardent defender of sales tax proposals such as the FAIR tax because it would be a great idea to replace the current system with any low-rate system that gets rid of the tax bias against saving and…. I even narrated this video explaining that a national sales tax and flat tax are different sides [...]
[...] let’s take a few minutes to review the features of a tax system that is simple and fair (and pro-growth). I’m talking about the flat tax, which now is successfully working in about 30 [...]
[...] let’s take a few minutes to review the features of a tax system that is simple and fair (and pro-growth). I’m talking about the flat tax, which now is successfully working in about 30 [...]
[...] is why a national sales tax can only be put on the table after the income tax is repealed. But since I don’t trust politicians, we need to also amend the Constitution to repeal the [...]
[...] If you want short and sweet descriptions of the major tax reform plans, here are four highly condensed descriptions of the flat tax, national sales tax, value-added tax, and current system. Rate this:Share [...]
[...] If you want short and sweet descriptions of the major tax reform plans, here are four highly condensed descriptions of the flat tax, national sales tax, value-added tax, and current system. Like this:LikeBe the [...]
[...] If you want short and sweet descriptions of the major tax reform plans, here are four highly condensed descriptions of the flat tax, national sales tax, value-added tax, and current [...]
[...] For those not familiar with the lingo, a “flat tax on consumption” simply means a tax system with one rate and no double taxation of income that is saved and invested. That can be a national sales tax or value-added tax, but it usually refers to the “Hall-Rabushka” flat tax championed by Dick Armey and Steve Forbes. If you want more information, click here and here. [...]
[...] is filled with debate and discussion about the economic burden of the federal income tax, which collected $1.13 trillion in FY2012 ($1.37 trillion if you include the corporate income [...]
[...] is filled with debate and discussion about the economic burden of the federal income tax, which collected $1.13 trillion in FY2012 ($1.37 trillion if you include the corporate income [...]
[...] is filled with debate and discussion about the economic burden of the federal income tax, which collected $1.13 trillion in FY2012 ($1.37 trillion if you include the corporate income [...]
[...] If you want short and sweet descriptions of the major tax reform plans, here are four highly condensed descriptions of the flat tax, national sales tax, value-added tax, and current [...]
[...] I was very ecumenical in my remarks. I pointed out the flat tax and sales tax (and even, at least in theory, the value-added tax) all share very attractive features. [...]
I like the Fair Tax. If you simultaneously eliminate the income tax and instate the Fair Tax and pass a Constitutional amendment that overrides the 16th amendment as being immoral then its a much better idea. Taxing income is immoral, thats why I don’t support the Flat Tax.
I prefer the Fair Tax because everyone would pay the tax, regardless of whether they are employed in the US, working off the books, an illegal alien, a drug dealer or a tourist. Mind you, all these groups still use many of the services available to American’s, like schools, hospitals, roads and highways.
However, I do agree with you with regard to not trusting the government to phase out Income Tax. The government is parasitical. It sells nothing, but takes everything. Once it got the taste of other people’s money, it was hooked like any other addict. I’m afraid there is no going forward or back to normality.
[...] restraint is a necessary precondition for any pro-growth tax reform. If given a choice between a flat tax, national sales tax, value-added tax, or the current system, many Americans want reform, but it is very difficult to have a good tax system if the burden of [...]
[...] restraint is a necessary precondition for any pro-growth tax reform. If given a choice between a flat tax, national sales tax, value-added tax, or the current system, many Americans want reform, but it is very difficult to have a good tax system if the burden of [...]
I prefer a flat corporate tax of 15% and abolish all forms of income tax, sales tax, capital gains tax, estate taxes, and all extraterritorial taxation. I would also suggest the US part take in unilateral free trade and make the entire USA a free trade zone in spite of whatever our trade partners policies maybe me.
In other words I prefer growth and opportunity with some risk, rather than stagnation and immobility that provides a safety net full of holes in it.
I go along with the flat tax and would add that we stop having it deducted from our paycheck automatically. I’m not convinced Congress would not continue to increase the tax regardless of the type.
If folks had to write a check out monthly or quarterly, it is less likely they will become complacent as the rate starts to creep up.
Clearly the moderator is attempting to appear to subscribe to ‘fairness’ which the new proposals are NOT!
What is being advocated in all instances is a tax on CONSUMPTION.
Adam Smith, known as the Father of Captialism, wrote in his seminal work, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, from Book V, Chapter 2, Article I:
“The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess.”
A Consumption tax in any of it’s many forms, sales tax, value-added-tax, fair tax is REGRESSIVE.
The Middle Class and the poor will pay FAR more of their income in these taxes than the wealthy. It is Common Sense and these ‘plans’ are simply a ploy to make the rich richer by not paying tax on the vast majority of their wealth.
No,
they are a ploy to get middle and lower income voters to contribute to the government coffers (i.e. the collective management of wealth) while still being able to hypocritically claim that campaign promises with regards to not increasing the tax burden on the poor and middle class are being adhered to.
This is because you can only tax rich people so much through progressive taxes before significant numbers of them either drop out of the workforce or settle for more modest financial aspirations. Then you not only loose the taxes they pay, but their high value products and services too – and that is, by far, the biggest loss for the public.
So, in a nutshell, progressive income taxes are already squeezing the rich to the point where further increases in taxation will not yield more money for the government (in the mid and long term that is – it takes a bit of time for the rich to modify their behavior in response to changes in the tax burden and for the effect to be felt on GDP). So the only other option left for the government in order to increase its revenue (and spending) past the current 3.5 trillion annual level, is to also start taxing the middle class and the poor. Hence the emerging proposals for VAT, sin taxes, carbon taxes and other indirect taxes that can be hidden so that the “no new taxes for the middle class” campaign promises are not so blatantly violated.
Fair Tax, Flat Tax will hurt both poor and middle class. The rich will love it. The poor need every penny for living expenses. The middle class needs 70% of income for living expenses. The truly rich can get by on 5%-10% of their income for living expenses. If they are truly rich even less. I have no lobby working for me to change laws but rich people do. We need to go back to 1979 max income tax rates of 70%. It could be graduated up to 100 million. The CEO’s making the biggest increases this year are the ones that got rid of the most American workers so their profit could soar. Most Americans still think that Free Trade is good, but it has cost me over $10,000,000. since 1980, when I was in the diamond wholesales business. Free Trade is not free and these ideas are truly biased for the rich.
Ron
[...] an ardent defender of sales tax proposals such as the FAIR tax because it would be a great idea to replace the current system with any low-rate system that gets rid of the tax bias against saving and…. I even narrated this video explaining that a national sales tax and flat tax are different sides [...]
Question about flat taxes:
Person 1 earns 25,000 a year. Person 1 pays 500 dollars a month for rent, 200 for food, 200 for utility bills (phone, electricity, heating), 100 for bus pass/train pass, for a total basic expenditure of 1000 per month. A flat tax on his total income of what, 15%, 10%, 12% would be another 257 each month. This leaves Person 1 with less than half of their total income per month, just about 825 dollars. Notice I did not include any costs for spouse, children, clothing, student loan payments, health insurance costs, car payments, car insurance, or savings. Let alone spending money for normal consumer expenditures like entertainment, Christmas shopping, Friday night movies, Monday night football with the guys, getting your nails or hair done with the girls.
Person 2 earns 250,000 a year. Person 1 spends 2250 for a studio apartment in lower Manhattan, however, still probably only spends 200 dollars on food, 200 for utility bills, 100 for the subway pass, apply that same flat income tax (averaged at 12.33%) and he will pay a much greater amount of 2568. This still leaves Person 1 with 15515.33 left over for the month. Again I am not factoring in any peripheral expenses.
So clearly, the 12.33% flat income tax has a much greater impact on Person 1 than Person 2. I think that is discriminatory.
Furthermore, since Person 2 has a greater disposable income, it is likely that Person 2 has a greater ability to use that income to make investments. These investments, if safe, are likely to bring a return. So on top of Person 2′s earned income of 250k you can assume that there are additional incomes collected. Are these additional incomes not earnings that would be taxed as interest, dividends, rental property income, etc? If either Person 1 or Person 2 suddenly earned a windfall inheritance does that count as income to be taxed?
Isn’t it more fair to say that it is discriminatory against Person 1 to charge him the same flat tax as Person 2?
NOTE:
This is a honest scenario and I want to know if what I understand as a flat tax is in fact true. I really would like if anyone can respond for insight and to correct anything (including my math) that I stated about flat tax.
[...] an ardent defender of sales tax proposals such as the FAIR tax because it would be a great idea to replace the current system with any low-rate system that gets rid of the tax bias against saving and…. I even narrated this video explaining that a national sales tax and flat tax are different sides [...]
[...] let’s take a few minutes to review the features of a tax system that is simple and fair (and pro-growth). I’m talking about the flat tax, which now is successfully working in about 30 [...]
[...] let’s take a few minutes to review the features of a tax system that is simple and fair (and pro-growth). I’m talking about the flat tax, which now is successfully working in about 30 [...]
[...] is why a national sales tax can only be put on the table after the income tax is repealed. But since I don’t trust politicians, we need to also amend the Constitution to repeal the [...]
[...] If you want short and sweet descriptions of the major tax reform plans, here are four highly condensed descriptions of the flat tax, national sales tax, value-added tax, and current system. Rate this:Share [...]
[...] If you want short and sweet descriptions of the major tax reform plans, here are four highly condensed descriptions of the flat tax, national sales tax, value-added tax, and current system. Like this:LikeBe the [...]
[...] If you want short and sweet descriptions of the major tax reform plans, here are four highly condensed descriptions of the flat tax, national sales tax, value-added tax, and current [...]
[...] For those not familiar with the lingo, a “flat tax on consumption” simply means a tax system with one rate and no double taxation of income that is saved and invested. That can be a national sales tax or value-added tax, but it usually refers to the “Hall-Rabushka” flat tax championed by Dick Armey and Steve Forbes. If you want more information, click here and here. [...]
[...] is filled with debate and discussion about the economic burden of the federal income tax, which collected $1.13 trillion in FY2012 ($1.37 trillion if you include the corporate income [...]
[...] is filled with debate and discussion about the economic burden of the federal income tax, which collected $1.13 trillion in FY2012 ($1.37 trillion if you include the corporate income [...]
[...] is filled with debate and discussion about the economic burden of the federal income tax, which collected $1.13 trillion in FY2012 ($1.37 trillion if you include the corporate income [...]
[...] If you want short and sweet descriptions of the major tax reform plans, here are four highly condensed descriptions of the flat tax, national sales tax, value-added tax, and current [...]
[...] I was very ecumenical in my remarks. I pointed out the flat tax and sales tax (and even, at least in theory, the value-added tax) all share very attractive features. [...]
[...] And, who knows, maybe he can reinvigorate the argument that we can replace the corrupt internal revenue code with a national sales tax? [...]
[...] And, who knows, maybe he can reinvigorate the argument that we can replace the corrupt internal revenue code with a national sales tax? [...]