HousingPANIC Stupid Question of the Day

February 18, 2008

HousingPANIC Stupid Question of the Day

Are you in favor of the Fair Tax?

(do not answer this question until you at least read up on it in this brief)

118 comments:

Ed said...: --
--
--
--

Yes.

2nd Question: Do I think it has a snowball's chance in hell? No.

I am constantly amazed by you Keith. You speak the conservative/libertarian talk yet support socialists like Obama.

I don't get it dude.; February 18, 2008 11:16 AM
blogger said...: Obama is not my dream candidate, far from it. We have two choices and only two in November and I'm choosing the best of the worst with Obama, who as I stated is against many of the things I am for.

Huckabee I believe was the ONLY candidate to be in favor of the fair tax, and possibly the first major candidate ever to support it. We're making progress. Too bad Huckabee was also an unelectable religious kook.

I support Obama but I'll be fighting against him. I would have fought against McCain even more.

Meanwhile, if you support the fair tax, also record who you'll be voting for in November.; February 18, 2008 11:28 AM
Anonymous said...: Yes - I am in favor of the Fair Tax. Its name is descriptive. That also implies the current tax system is unfair which indeed it is.

I have not made up my mind whether I will vote Obama or McCain. I have not voted for a Democrat for president in over 30 years. But McCain's support for illegal immigration and support for stamping out first amendment rights (campaign finance "reform") may be too much for me to vote for him. While I feel the same way about Obama as Keith, I don't know if I can vote for him either. I don't know if you can write in a candidate in Georgia but if you can, I'll write in Ron Paul. If not, I may very well abstain from voting for president (though I will be at the polls voting in other races).; February 18, 2008 11:42 AM
Anonymous said...: Absolutely not. As a small business owner, this tax hike would destroy my sales. The only way it could be revenue neutral is if the rate were 35% or more.

The government would end up spending billions in a futile effort to police the burgeoning black markets (think war on drugs times ten).

Corporations would likely immediately lower wages by 15% on the day this bad idea became law.

Our tax policy is maddeningly complex and burdensome, but this so-called fair tax plan is a foolish pablum.; February 18, 2008 11:59 AM
Anonymous said...: As an involuntary renter, I cannot support a tax on those unable to buy a home. If I were renting by choice, I could have a more favcorable opinion.. If homeowners paid their Fair share of tax, I'd be more amenable to it.

Also, I have high medical expenses and cannot support a tax on involuntary medical expenses. Supporters say that necessities are protected from tax (by the "prebate") but anyone with high medical expenses know that the proponents are full of hogwash.; February 18, 2008 12:02 PM
Anonymous said...: Oh, and don't even get me started on the rebates the government will have to send every month. Forget foe a minute the cost of printing and mailing tens of millions of checks every month. Picture the widespread fraud, bureaucratic errors, identity theft, etc.; February 18, 2008 12:08 PM
Anonymous said...: "Fair tax" "Death Tax" all a bunch of rhetorical crap thought up by right wing think tanks. I call them the "punish the poor tax" and the "Darwin Tax" respectively. Taxes need to be paid and those most able to and who are rewarded to live in a so called country of law should be happy to pay them.; February 18, 2008 1:08 PM
Anonymous said...: Nothing will prevent bureaucrats from piling cretinous regulations on top of a rather simple idea.

Example: in Russia any resident, including foreigners, can register as a "private entrepreneur" for a broad range of activities and pay a FLAT 6% income tax (or a 15% profit tax). That might not be the Fair Tax but looks very close and promising! But, because Russia is a "social country", you also have to make separate contributions (ca. $75 per year) to the State Pension Fund (PF). OK, no problem. But you also have to file quarterly tax returns with advance payments, and send out annual PF statements, and keep an incomes/expenditures ledger and a cash-register machine (subject to registration in the taxation authority) if you accept cash, along with all bills and contracts. Ouch. But you can reduce your "tax burden"! As with an IRA/401k, you can deduct your PF payments from your income tax unless the deductions exceed 50% of the tax amount - but you must spread this silly $75 deduction over 4 quarters in your tax return forms.
And if you hire employees, you become subject of statistical reporting and assume the responsibility of "tax agent", filing reports and paying two-digit percent taxes for your employees. And corporate customers may be unwilling to deal with you because 6-percenters complicate VAT accounting for them. By the time you realize that it's the paperwork, not the 6% tax rate, that incapacitates you, you may already have discovered that closing the "private entrepreneur" business will take even more effort than registering it!; February 18, 2008 1:10 PM
Anonymous said...: It would only result in a massive underground cash only economy.

Go to Chinatown.

In fact, go to Tyson Foods. The big cheese just had 140000 in a brief case stolen by his daughters party guest. Just laying around.

Also terribly regressive.; February 18, 2008 1:18 PM
Anonymous said...: The “Fair Tax” looks to me like another ploy to consolidate wealth by the super-rich in the US. Looking at the chart of projected tax payments based on Boston U data, clearly the biggest winners are at the highest income levels. Accepting the data as absolutely correct (which I do not for the current tax system & low earners), almost all categories see modest gains except for the very wealthy where taxes are significantly reduced.

The idea of revenue neutrality is a complete joke. Repeat after me… tax cuts pay for themselves.

But what would else would you have expected the wealthy to propose?

Coke out!; February 18, 2008 1:22 PM
Anonymous said...: Yes.

The only complaint I've heard about it is that it could drive some of the buying and selling of goods underground.

But apparently some think it will bring much more of the economy to the light than drive underground.

Let's get Mike Huckabee to explain it to us again. No thanks to the President thing Mike, but please do explain that tax plan again.; February 18, 2008 1:35 PM
blogger said...: You don't think America has an underground economy problem today?

go talk to the strippers, bartenders, drug dealers, hookers, ebay sellers, 50 million illegals or the REIC today

You're kidding yourselves. There is massive tax avoidance today in the USA. Got a W2 job? Great - you're paying into a system that many are thumbing their noses at.

I say get rid of the income tax - we got by without it before and we can get by without it again. Get rid of the IRS, get rid of the entire tax preparation and avoidance ecosystem, get rid of the accounts and the lawywers, and start over.

Ask yourselves - if we were a new country, writing tax policy from scratch, would we write what we currently have? Hell no. So what would we want? Yes, we need to pay taxes. Yes, government must provide services and infrastructure. So what's the most fair way to tax the citizens?

The fair tax isn't perfect. I haven't seen perfect yet. But I do want to see new ideas and an open discussion, one that America has not had with itself, and now it's time.

Bravo to Huckabee for running on this. Bravo to Steve Forbes for running on the flat tax. And damn the three current candidates for more of the same.

Bloomberg would have been the ideal candidate to take this on. Too bad. Maybe next time.; February 18, 2008 1:42 PM
blogger said...: http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/encyclopedia/Thir-Val/Underground-Economy.html

UNDERGROUND ECONOMY

The term "underground economy" refers to the part of the economy that generates income, but goes untaxed. According to Tibbett Speer in American Demographics, each year as much as $1 trillion of income goes unreported to the Internal Revenue Service. Moreover, the unreported amount appears to be growing, due partly to a rapid increase in small service companies and a large influx of illegal immigrants, according to Speer. Roughly 83 percent of the taxes Americans owe the government are paid voluntarily. Audits and other enforcement methods generate an additional 4 percent. However, the remaining 13 percent of potential tax revenue slips through the cracks.; February 18, 2008 1:45 PM
Anonymous said...: Keith,

I will have to spend more time reading the Wiki article and some other sources before I make up my mind. On face value it looks like it might have potential. I don't like the fact that they mention that there is a reward for turning in cheaters. Having the populace spy/act as an agent of the govt is never a good thing. I have always been a fan of a flat tax across the board on all income above the poverty line, but this looks like it may be more effective, I just need to do more reading on it.

I will vote for Ron Paul in this years election. I do not buy the lesser of two evils argument that you seem to operate under. If everyone resigns themselves to that thought process when it comes to voting, we will always be stuck with the crap leaders that this two party system produces.; February 18, 2008 1:45 PM
Malcolm said...: Not at the percent they’re talking about.

They claim that it will lower retail prices because business will be able to drop the tax built into each step of production, but we all know that they won’t lower prices anywhere near the same amount.

The tax is generally unfair to poorer people; and would cause dramatic drops in revenue if the American people actually started to save money (a long shot, I know, but theoretically possible).

I was playing around with numbers from the IRS, and I have a better idea (that will also generated more revenue)….

A straight 10% tax on all income. No deductions, but the first $50k is tax free, with no upper limit.

So, those making less than 50k would pay no tax, those making above (including those who make $150 million per year) pay a straight 10%; February 18, 2008 2:00 PM
Anonymous said...: I think we should not only eliminate the fair tax but I also don't think we need a fair tax.

I'd assume that states would pick up the slack with higher state taxes, property taxes or sales taxes and states could compete for the smallest tax burden.; February 18, 2008 2:13 PM
Anonymous said...: Absolutely not. I fear the establishment of a sales tax without abolishing the 16th amendment. I am sure there are plenty of looters in Washington who wouldn't mind having both. Spending is the problem, not taxes, and the Federal Reserve is the enabler through monetization of debt. Abolish the Central Bank, and you've effectively abolished the welfare-warfare state.; February 18, 2008 2:13 PM
Anonymous said...: "Yes - I am in favor of the Fair Tax. Its name is descriptive. That also implies the current tax system is unfair which indeed it is."

No tax system is ever fair because you still have to be honest when calculating your income.; February 18, 2008 2:14 PM
Bryan said...: A thousand times no to regressive taxation. I'm also anti-lottery, so I'm consistent.

Uh, how do I explain to the Best Buy cashier to take (x)% off my tax because I gave to the church of my choice? Rendering under Caesar what's Caesar's and rendering to God what is God's is important to me. (Matthew 22:15-22) Until fish start spitting up either my tax bill and/or the money for the church (Matthew 17:27), I'll keep the Schedule A.

I voted a week ago, but I'm not to the point of endorsing in the public arena. Could have gone anon but the "hit-and-run" anon Bible guy is messing up actual religious discourse here in these fraudulent economic times.; February 18, 2008 2:53 PM
blogger said...: conjob like most Americans you showed your laziness and lack of intellectual curiosity by not even reading the one-pager on the fair tax before you commented.

The fair tax ELIMINATES income tax. There is no reporting of income.

Get it now?

Redeem yourself - do the reading, then comment, I'd be interested to know your opinion; February 18, 2008 2:53 PM
Bryan said...: Keith said: "I say get rid of the income tax - we got by without it before and we can get by without it again."

Were we not a nation of net exports with tariffs back then?; February 18, 2008 2:55 PM
blogger said...: Bryan - you like conjob likely didn't read the proposal as requested. If you did you missed the rebate section. I too am opposed to regressive taxation. But look at what Warren Buffett said about his secretary paying a higher tax rate than he does if you want to see regressive taxation in effect today in the good ol' USA.

Open your minds people. At least read the proposal.
_______

Under the FairTax, households of citizens and legal resident aliens would receive a "Family Consumption Allowance" (FCA) based on family size (regardless of income) that is equal to the estimated total FairTax paid on poverty level spending according to the poverty guidelines published by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.[1] The poverty level guidelines vary by family size and represent the cost to purchase household necessities.; February 18, 2008 2:57 PM
Anonymous said...: The "Fair" Tax would...

* Probably be OK for the poor.
* Be a *fantastic* deal for the wealthy.
* Be the final death blow for the middle class in America.

It's not nearly progressive enough. "Fair" tax means kiss the middle class good bye.; February 18, 2008 2:58 PM
blogger said...: 2007 income tax receipts were $1.1 trillion. If we eliminated that spending it would take us back to 1995 levels.

I'd like to see that approach - screw the whole thing, cut the spending, especially the military as Ron Paul suggests. The economy would roar.

But if we must raise taxes and keep up spending like drunks, then I like the Fair Tax.

The income tax generates less than 1/2 of government revenues. Choke the government I say. But if not, then replace the revenue with something fair, not the BS we have today.

Here's Ron Paul:

Could America exist without an income tax? Here is Ron Paul's answer:

The idea seems radical, yet in truth America did just fine without a federal income tax for the first 126 years of her history. Prior to 1913, the government operated with revenues raised through tariffs, excise taxes, and property taxes, without ever touching a worker's paycheck...Does anyone seriously believe we could not find ways to cut spending back to 2000 levels? Perhaps the idea of an America without an income tax is not so radical after all.; February 18, 2008 3:03 PM
Bryan said...: Sir, I read the Wikipedia article. I only noticed one mention of "charity" anywhere - Mr. Boortz's use of his income from the book. Ctrl-F3 showed a second mention: Wikipedia is a 501(c)3 charity. Medical deductions, charitable contribution, and state income taxes - do I have to file every month/quarter/year to get the rebate. Won't we need a bureaucracy to process all this?

I've gotten a "free" cell phone that cost $50 since I forgot to file the paperwork 120-150 days later. How is requiring all of lower-class America and much of middle class America to request "rebates" from their country not regressive in and of itself. Opponents of the tax, according to the Wiki article, called that possibility the biggest entitlement program of all.; February 18, 2008 3:08 PM
David in JAX said...: I am for the Fair Tax.

For those of you who think the Fair Tax is regressive and think the current tax system is progressive, YOU ARE FOOLING YOURSELVES. Keith's Buffett example is the classic example of how the current system favors the wealthy at the expense of the middle class. How is the current tax system progressive if the wealthy are paying themselves in dividends at a 15% tax rate and get massive investment tax credits while the middle class are forced to pay 25-35% in taxes with little to no tax breaks? The Fair Tax is completely progressive and would be a huge win for the middle class of our country because it A) has people pay taxes on the amount they spend (progressive) and B) gets rid of rediculous tax breaks.

On a personal note, my boss makes about 10 times what I do and is well into the seven figure income range. He pays almost exactly 1/10the of the total taxes that I do and has an effective income tax rate of about 1%. The current tax system allows him to legally do this by paying himself in dividends and loan repayments and getting massive investment tax credits.

I encourage everyone to read The Fair Tax Book because it explains a lot of the issues that are being discussed on this thread.; February 18, 2008 3:21 PM
Anonymous said...: In theory, it's a good idea. Practically, it's crazy uless the 16th amendment is appealed, or limited to a flat tax not to exceed 20% or less.

Politicians will always promise a majority of the population "something for nothing" and try to pay for it by taxing a minority of the population, or even better taxing future generations. The fair tax would just open a new source of funding.; February 18, 2008 3:40 PM
Paige Turner said...: RE: Are you in favor of the Fair Tax?

Of course I am in favor of any legislation that would reduce the tax burden of the poor and increase the tax burden of the rich.

Will the Fair Tax ever become a reality in the US?

Of course not.

Any measure that would create a reduction in the number of government jobs will never pass.

It is common knowledge that the only job responsibility many government employees have is to keep their jobs.

In a collapsing society, the parasite government will only get bigger -- not smaller.

V.L.; February 18, 2008 3:43 PM
Anonymous said...: The IRS and the Income Tax are not primarily about providing funding for the government (the number I remember for personal income tax was only a few hundred billion per year).

The IRS and the Income Tax are primarily about social control. The government can pass or withhold tax benefits to help mold society into what they want it to be.

I have a book on my shelf about the IRS that I've been meaning to read. It's called A Law Unto Themselves. It may be time to dust it off and read it (assuming that my blood pressure can handle it).

The IRS has to go. I don't see how we can be a truly free country with a government organization like the IRS. I'd be in favor of a national sales tax for the simple reason that it would return anonymity to purchases. I don't think it's any of the government's business how much money I make, or even that it was me that bought that boat that they taxed.; February 18, 2008 3:45 PM
Anonymous said...: Yeah, it's like the Clear Skies Initiative or the Healthy Forest Initiative, both policies that do the exact opposite of what their names imply.

The Unfair Tax is another push by the top to gain control of more wealth. They'd bring back the feudal system if they could.

It appeals to the selfish savages but few others.; February 18, 2008 3:53 PM
Anonymous said...: No. I'd rather have NoTax.; February 18, 2008 3:57 PM
Anonymous said...: No.; February 18, 2008 4:04 PM
Anonymous said...: GDP is 70% of the economy. a consumption based tax will never ever pass.

i did not even waste my time reading about it btw.; February 18, 2008 4:12 PM
Anonymous said...: McCain as the lesser of two evils... Hmm... Nah, not even close.

Obama (if he lives) will govern from a pro-business center. Why? Because "business" needs government to rein in its excesses.

Democrats want business to produce because that is what funds the Welfare State.

Trust Fund Republicans don't give a shit because they have wealth out the wazoo from birth.; February 18, 2008 4:21 PM
Anonymous said...: Sure, let's get rid of the IRS, stop paying taxes. It's a well-known fact that a frist rate, first world country runs on AIR.

Just pay your bills to live in this country you profess to love so much, ya deadbeats.

Most of you would be decimated by the type of culture you advocate.; February 18, 2008 4:22 PM
Anonymous said...: By the way, inflation is the flattest tax, with the least overhead.; February 18, 2008 4:22 PM
Anonymous said...: This tax is unbelievably regressive. Even with the prebate. The fact of the matter is that is shifts the tax burden from the richest to the middle class. It is fair in the sense that everyone pays the same on some level...however...not everyone's dad could send them to Yale...and we make up for this unfairness (to what opportunities we are born) with a progressive tax schedule.

In the end...the reason America is a stable country is a large middle class. The reason places like Brazil are not are the gap between Rich and Poor. An "unfair" income tax artifically keeps the middle class afloat. and I'm ok with that because that means I'm not living in an unstable country.; February 18, 2008 4:24 PM
Chris said...: I want to get rid of the IRS and replace it with NOTHING. Thats right, get rid of the IRS and replace it with NOTHING.

Simply cut spending back to constitutional levels, no more welfare or nanny state, and get rid of the IRS.

The Fair Tax is WORSE than the IRS because it charges consumption, so poor, working, and middle class Americans will end up paying even more taxes than they do now, while the rich will get richer.

IRS IS BAD

Fair Tax is Worse.; February 18, 2008 4:35 PM
Devestment said...: After reading about the fair tax I have questions.

Does my money already in savings get taxed again when I spend it or do I get a humongous rebate when the tax is implemented?

As a retail merchant am I expected to pick up the costs in collecting YOUR TAX and sending it to the government?

If the fair tax rewards savings and investment does this cause more inflation in those sectors? Is real estate going to be a bubble investment loop hole?

Who collects the fair tax at garage sales, eBay sales, flea markets, trade shows, barter clubs, illegal labor, service labor, private party transactions, etc???

It all looks to me like another Ponzi scheme.

I dub it the “The Fraud Tax”.

However, if they pass it I will profit with this information.; February 18, 2008 4:40 PM
Anonymous said...: a tax on consumption? suits my bias. short Turbotax :); February 18, 2008 5:16 PM
Anonymous said...: Fair Tax is about as fair as the Patriot Act is patriotic.

All taxes are wrong.; February 18, 2008 5:40 PM
Anonymous said...: In Obama's home town of Chicago, and the County of Cook that the City is in, our asshole pols are passing laws to raise sales taxes to the highest level in the nation.

So, Keith if you want a high federal sales tax also support Obama! But know that his kind do not remove other taxes. Fools.; February 18, 2008 5:46 PM
Anonymous said...: You know something guys.

Every time the government touches anything, it turns into shit.

Remember the tax breaks from Bush. Well, I dont.

I am against the "FAIR" tax crap. Leave things the way they are. To me, it sounds like a ploy to screw the people again. Dont be fooled.

Danny; February 18, 2008 5:47 PM
Anonymous said...: The government would end up spending billions in a futile effort to police the burgeoning black markets (think war on drugs times ten).
--

I agree with you. The black markets will flourish. Also they will begin taxing internet sale also, to catch people buying stuff over seas!; February 18, 2008 5:48 PM
Anonymous said...: We don't need a personal income or a national sales tax. We need to cut government spending.; February 18, 2008 5:55 PM
Anonymous said...: No. The FAIR tax is a consumption tax. Since the U.S. economy is now 75% dependent on consumption spending, the FAIR will cause an instant depression. It is impossible to ignore the initial, marginal effects on prices, wages, and consumption.

Advocates say all of the initial negative economic side effects of the FAIR tax will be resolved in the long run, but as everyone knows and Keynes pointed out, "In the long run we are dead".; February 18, 2008 6:02 PM
RJ said...: The current tax system is a huge drag on the economy. Boortz estimates $500 billion per year is spent just on income tax compliance alone (page 49, The Fair Tax Book). How much would it cost to process rebate checks? How much will it cost the government to process the checks being sent out this May? Not $500 billion and obviously far less than the $140 billion in total "stimulus."

Regardless, the main conflict is between welfare statists and those of us who believe wages are our property which the government has no right to confiscate. And as far as revenue neutrality, the Fair Tax would be revenue neutral if the government drastically reduced its spending. In any case, the government's rapidly growing $53 trillion deficit is proof positive that the current tax system is not designed to meet spending requirements but to legitimize the government seizure of just wages through a kind of creeping socialism.

The "Communist Manifesto" policy planks 2 and 5:

A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.; February 18, 2008 6:03 PM
Paul E. Math said...: I have a lot of concerns about the 'fair' tax. No doubt, the current system is horrible.

I'm with Doc the Zealot, my main criteria for a good tax system would be one that neither encourages nor discourages any particular behaviour. I don't want my government feeding me carrots and slapping my wrist, depending on whether I conform to their dictates - it should be the other way around.

The best tax system is no tax and the 2nd best tax system is one that most closely approximates the effect of no tax.

Tax everything at the same rate, regardless of how it is earned or spent. Give the poor a break. Give the middle class a smaller break. Give the rich no break at all.

I'm not sure the 'fair' tax is a practical means of accomplishing my goals. But neither can I think of a better way.; February 18, 2008 6:04 PM
Anonymous said...: No. I am not in favor of the Fair Tax.

Why? Because it already exists now. It is called inflation. The invisible tax that we all pay when we purchase goods and services.

So, in effect, the Fair Tax would result in double taxation.

I am with Ron Paul on this one. I want NO taxation. No Income Tax. No Fair Tax. No nothing.

Cut all the reckless "We're the king of the world" spending first then come talk to me about taxes.; February 18, 2008 6:06 PM
alba said...: No. We don't even pay sales taxes on interstate purchases on the internet. With a "fair tax," that would have to change. We would end up buying goods from out of the country. Of course, large-end purchases, by the rich, will find a way to "evade" the requirement of a sales tax. And at the lower end, bartering, and cash deals, will flourish as a second economy.

Dumb idea. Might work in Arkansas...do they have the internets there?; February 18, 2008 6:07 PM
Anonymous said...: Example of the "Fair Use" (sales) tax:

Frugal billionaire ($30,000,000,000 - rough net worth) Warren Buffett buys a $50,000 Cadillac and pays a 25% "fair use" tax of $12,500 for a total of $62,000... all paid in cash.

Now, wannabe Warren Buffett corporate lackey making $100,000 a year finances a $50,000 BMW, but needs to have $12,500 cash for a "fair use" tax to seal the deal.

How is it that the billionaire is paying his/her fair share of the tax burden??

How is is that the "Fair Use" (sales) tax isn't going to kill consumer economic spending?

The only tax I think would be "fair" would be something of a flat 25% tax (15% federal - 10% state). Governments would need to control their spending (actually budget). Do away with tax deductions (no more IRS forms or $75 tax preparation programs every year). No more corporate tax (encourages more employment - employees are already taxed). No more sales tax (encourages spending - better for the economy). No more property taxes (home ownership shouldn't be a burden). Legalize underground trades and services to collect taxes on the income; February 18, 2008 6:08 PM
Anonymous said...: The devil is in the details. I think a progressive form of taxation has no chance. The government is owned by the big corporations and the Mega-Rich. They will not tell their creatures in government to whack their pocketbooks.

Kenduffelsniffenspotzen; February 18, 2008 6:22 PM
Anonymous said...: Since very little is now being made in the USA, is there any reason why we couldn't collect the sales tax at the border on merchandise entering the country?; February 18, 2008 6:34 PM
Anonymous said...: .

Consumption tax!

Pay tax only on your purchases, at the point of purchase,

None of this double taxation shit!

.; February 18, 2008 6:51 PM
Anonymous said...: "I don't think it's any of the government's business how much money I make, or even that it was me that bought that boat that they taxed."

Could not have said it better myself. I too love the idea of not having to reveal what I do and where my money comes from every year to an agency of government who has more power than the FBI. It seems that in a country that somewhere around 70% of GDP is consumption driven, it makes sense to tax that consumption. And the worst that happens if it reduces consumption, people save and waste is reduced, hmmm that does not sound too bad. I guess accountants would have to go back to helping businesses keep track of finance and doing audits for stockholders instead of spending countless wasted effort figuring out tax mumbo-jumbo. It also would cut down on revenue in the government and force them to start living within a budget, since they could not force people to consume. Less waste, more savings, wow, I guess that is just too much for this country to take.; February 18, 2008 6:57 PM
Anonymous said...: Yes; February 18, 2008 6:57 PM
Anonymous said...: Generally yes, but all boomers should be taxed double.

And by the way, the middle class families with 2-4 kids SHOULD be paying more than most others as they and their dipshit kids use most of the services. Think about it, as a single professional who cannot afford to buy a home because of the runup, why the fu*k am I paying more in taxes and not getting the deductions? It's complete bullsh*t. And to top it all off, it is these same people who all cry about paying a lot in taxes, yet they are the ones getting all the fu*king deductions - deductions for their dipshit kids, deductions for child care, health care, home interest, college funds, etc. Pull your own fuc*ing weight, I am fucking siick of it; February 18, 2008 7:02 PM
Frank R said...: "Of course I am in favor of any legislation that would reduce the tax burden of the poor and increase the tax burden of the rich."

That is a very ignorant statement when you consider that the poor in this country already pay ZERO taxes while we have the 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the WORLD.

Statements like that are the result of biased MSM reporting and Hollywood propaganda and the brainwashing that ensues.; February 18, 2008 7:10 PM
Frank R said...: I'm all for the Fair Tax.

Is it the best solution? No. Is it better than the current "progressive" (read - Robin Hood) system? Yes. Is it better than a flat income tax? Yes, because that would still require tax preparers to figure out the adjusted gross income, and tax preparation would still be a nightmare, especially for business.

In reality, the only truly fair tax would be one where every citizen and resident of the US pays the same AMOUNT, not just the same %, but with the majority of this country having become lazy and all out to get their "fair share" and constantly plotting ways to extort from those of us who worked hard to become successful, a true fair tax will never happen.; February 18, 2008 7:15 PM
Frank R said...: And by the way, the middle class families with 2-4 kids SHOULD be paying more than most others as they and their dipshit kids use most of the services. Think about it, as a single professional who cannot afford to buy a home because of the runup, why the fu*k am I paying more in taxes and not getting the deductions? It's complete bullsh*t. And to top it all off, it is these same people who all cry about paying a lot in taxes, yet they are the ones getting all the fu*king deductions - deductions for their dipshit kids, deductions for child care, health care, home interest, college funds, etc. Pull your own fuc*ing weight, I am fucking sick of it

Amen, brother, amen. This is why we'll never have a truly FAIR tax in this country. It's become a needs-based socialist system and no longer a production-based capitalist system.; February 18, 2008 7:28 PM
Anonymous said...: Those who say the flat tax would have to be 50% to support the government are correct. But maybe that's the point. Government would have to make do with the money it would get, which in turn would mean (the government) and the country live within it's means. Ha, like that would happen.
Also, think about it, maybe it would be cheaper not to have government spending whatever it fells like; $4TRILLION will be squandered on Iraq and Afghanistan alone.; February 18, 2008 7:36 PM
Anonymous said...: Keith,
I've been away for a little while, but I'm trolling here again. You are retarded for giving up on Ron Paul. Just because he probly won't be the Republican nominee doesn't mean you can't vote for him, You can write him in on your ballot. I'm still voting for him. You can even vote for Mickey Mouse if you want.
Dont be a retard.; February 18, 2008 7:43 PM
Anonymous said...: Will drive even more of the economy underground. The people it will benefit will be the small buisinesses that don't report most of their revenue anyway. In New Jersey, every time the tax on gasoline goes up the Russian Mafia makes a killing because they get to rais the price of gasoline, but since they don't report their income, the amount they can pocket goes up since they pocket the taxes collected. The same thing happens in small buisnesses like inner-city markets, sandwich shops, beauty parlors, etc. As sales taxes go up, they charge the customer more, but since they only report a fraction of their actual sales, they amount paid to the government does not increase. When the State Taxation or IRS tries to investigate, it is usually a fruitless excercise, as the shopkeeper plays the Miss Swan game and agent get frustrated an does not persue it.; February 18, 2008 7:52 PM
Anonymous said...: Frank from Scottdale,

I think you have a point there, but what is poor and what's not.

I will tell you this, I consider myself poor, and I sure pay a whole lot of taxes every year.

What makes you poor?

Danny; February 18, 2008 7:54 PM
Anonymous said...: You can keep the tax system progressive and socialist friendly simply by having a largish 0% bracket at the bottom and *no* deductions or rebates at all.

No need for tax accountants, pick up a calculator like device at the post office, enter you gross income copy the number into the form. Or so the whole thing online.

Of course removing rebates and deductions gets rid of one of the big ways the government "encourages" behaviour which is the real goal...

0-Xk : 0%
Xk - Yk : 5%
Yk - Zk : 10%

and so on up as high as the socialists desire...; February 18, 2008 7:57 PM
Anonymous said...: NO.

The solution is to:

1-Make corporations pay their fair share of taxes. A corporation is legally equivalent to an individual, thus they must bear their share of the tax burden.

2-The uber rich must pay their share of the tax burden.

3-members of #s 1 & 2 must pay a higher tax rate. PERIOD.

4-Federal/State/Local Spending must be reigned in. Pork barrel projects, ear marking and excessive compensation for gov't officials and employees must stop.

5-Elected officials should get no pay and no retirement, only benefits while in office PERIOD.

6-Unfunded mandates must stop.

7-The military-industrial complex must be dismembered and should not be given carte blanch to waste taxpayer funds. The wars must end. A single, short, violent and ruthless war in Afghanistan after 9/11 would have done more for national security than the last 5 years worth of conflict. Therefore, develop an exit strategy and execute it. Upon its completion, draw down the DOD budget, stop the dole for all the dod contractors.

8-Baby boomers are just going to have to accept less in terms of SSI benefits.

9-Eliminate welfare & replace it purely with workfare.

10-Plus up funding and programs to educate the next generation to not be parasites on society.

11-Eliminate/cap many of the tax deductions and loopholes.

12-Pass a balanced budget amendment with a safety valve mechanism when the gov't must spend more (e.g. great depression and when war is thrust upon us) but which requires a 2/3 majority from both houses.; February 18, 2008 8:04 PM
Anonymous said...: The fair tax is a libertarians wet dream.
Government would have to make do with the money it was given based on consumption.
They could withhold money from the government by not making any purchases.

The republican way of undermining government is to
1) destroy it's credibility, (think the fiasco in New Orleans and surrounding areas after Katrina; heckuva job brownie please don't bother me with reports of a city underwater I'm late for my dinner appointment).
and
2) underfund it.

If the fair tax was 15%, I would support it, mainly for the reason that it would be a lot simpler and cheaper than doing taxes

What would happen to all the IRS bureaucrats? Supposedly when they ended prohibition, all the bureaucrats were given jobs at the IRS.

Of course for the government to agree to a flat tax, it would have to have a lot of libertarians/independents in the mix anyway.; February 18, 2008 8:14 PM
Anonymous said...: The government would end up spending billions in a futile effort to police the burgeoning black markets (think war on drugs times ten).

---------------------------------

and I suppose there isn't any "underground" cash enconomy now?; February 18, 2008 8:22 PM
Anonymous said...: Not at the percent they’re talking about.

-------------------------------

What does the percentage matter??

All I care about is that I pay the same or less in total dollars with the new system vs the old. Heck, I think I would be willing to pay a little more just to get rid of the complex system we have today.

It is total dollars paid that matters, not the precentage. I could careless if the percentage is 90% as long as I don't see my taxes increase.; February 18, 2008 8:29 PM
Anonymous said...: No. "Fair tax" is nonsense - welfare for the rich. What is needed is a transaction tax. Given the number of transactions each day, the poor and most of the middle class will bear little burden, but the speculators, day traders, currency traders will be reined in as pay the heaviest burden. Since such folk can hardly go underground, they're held accountable.; February 18, 2008 8:31 PM
Anonymous said...: I am against this tax. It is not fair to change the system so radically to those of us who, through carefull planing and investement, have managed to optimize our income to tax rate.

I paid plenty of taxes over the years to get to where I am in the "game". I play fairly and legally. I pay no more tax than I legally owe (which is often near 0% on a 6 figure income). changing the rules now would not be fair.; February 18, 2008 8:41 PM
Anonymous said...: Now, wannabe Warren Buffett corporate lackey making $100,000 a year finances a $50,000 BMW, but needs to have $12,500 cash for a "fair use" tax to seal the deal.

------------------------------

but the corporate lackey will be taking home about 30k more per year under the fair tax system.

you are also comparing net worth (30 billion) to yearly income (100k). Buffet does not make 30B a year. Buffet's salary is 100k per year, i think.

Keith,

I swear, I think the average IQ on this board must be 100. seems like half the posters never read the first page of the wiki link. If they did, they didn't comprehend it.; February 18, 2008 8:50 PM
Anonymous said...: Those who say the flat tax would have to be 50% to support the government are correct. But maybe that's the point.

---------------------------------

Why does everyone get worked up over the percentage?

Would it be acceptable if it was 7% but you ended up paying more per year in taxes than before????

make it 100%! WTF, it doesn't matter as long as I pay the same dollar amount as I am currently paying!

The moronic responses to this stupid question of the day is really eye opening. We are a nation of monkeys. I feel like that guy in the tv commercial whose coworkers are literally a bunch of monkeys.; February 18, 2008 8:59 PM
Anonymous said...: The fair tax is ludicrous.

Look at the big picture...

If you make 1M how much tax do you pay? 300K? 350K? On average, probably about that.

How much do you spend on consumption? The rich mostly save their money. Almost no one spends 500K on consumption.

So they are now taxed on consumption. 23% of 100K say. So their taxes go from 350K to 23K. Sweet!

The poor somehow do better too. OK. and the middle class pay less too!

Great...so how is this revenue neutral again?; February 18, 2008 8:59 PM
Anonymous said...: 1-Make corporations pay their fair share of taxes. A corporation is legally equivalent to an individual, thus they must bear their share of the tax burden.

----------------------------------

who do you think, in the end, pays the corporations taxes? The corporation's customers pay the corporation's taxes. So, we are already paying a consumption tax.; February 18, 2008 9:03 PM
alba said...: Progressive tax with no deductions. Take the current 6 brackets, and lower them proportionally down to a rate that brings in enough revenue to pay for a much smaller goverment.

This alone would cause huge unemployment, but may be worth it.

Even with redistribution, governments always favor the influencial, not the poor. They don't vote.; February 18, 2008 9:15 PM
Anonymous said...: This from genesis @ ticker forum:

Closing Predictions for Today 8/14, I'll start - Dow -300, NDX under 1900.

Note: The market proceeded to rally for two straight months.

Genesis is a shill, he knows nothing. If you listen to him you will lose money. It wouldn't surprise me if he was long equities.; February 18, 2008 9:18 PM
Anonymous said...: sad
http:blog.mich.com/annarbornews/2008/02/police_say_grand_canyon_death.html; February 18, 2008 9:23 PM
Anonymous said...: Keith: We already elected an unelectable religious kook-TWICE! Oh, I mis-spoke. The supreme court elected an unelectable religious kook-twice. As, for the fair tax...don't we already have this now??The rich and businesses pay no taxes and the poor pay no taxes, and the middle class are milked for every dollar uncle sam can get. The rich and businesses are going to find a loophole in ANY tax system.
Grace; February 18, 2008 10:14 PM
Anonymous said...: in favor of a sales tax instead of an income tax, but not exactly like the fair tax.

for those who think something like a fair tax is too regressive think about these 2 issues.
1) someone above makes a good point that there is already a sales/service tax on top of the income tax: the inflation tax. the inflation tax is the most regressive of all.
2) the income tax already shows up in products as price increases to pay the income tax burden that hits every company in the supply chain of a product or service. currently, companies have incentive to cut out middle men and consolidate to keep prices low. bad news for competition and lower prices.

people claim a sales tax would push things underground. I don't agree for several reasons.
1) you have fewer protections and remedies if you buy your defective product underground. you can't enforce illegal contracts.
2) there's a better chance your product will be defective underground since underground sellers don't have as much incentive to worry about quality. they don't have trademarks that build up good will over time.
3) I believe legal businesses have greater economies of scale. so if, for instance, the fed government respected state laws that permit medical MJ, any chain store could monitor and sell better quality for less in CA. underground stuff is expensive.

instead of rebates, have no sales tax on necessities (e.g., food, clothing). probably have no tax on services either.

this is what I like about a retail sales tax. it encourages saving. it removes the many levels of income tax built into a product's price. currently, the price of your product includes income tax costs associated with every company a product passes through. simplicity for most citizens who would no longer have to file fed forms. illegals, underground folk, evaders and tourists would help too whenever they buy something at a legit store.

PS I believe Tancredo was also for the fair sales tax, but he wasn't as popular as Huckabee.; February 18, 2008 10:15 PM
Anonymous said...: Neil Boortz is a has-been lawyer who never operated a real business. He claims tax reporting costs $500B a year now and OK, maybe he's right. So who does he think is going to pay to administer and collect the fair tax? The same punters who fill out the IRS forms instead have to fill out fair tax forms! Where is the savings?

And you can be damn sure the federal and state governments will have their gestapo tax investigators breathing down everyone's neck to make sure Joe's donut shop didn't sell two dozen under the table to the Lion's club. And the nonsense about mailing 100 million prebate checks every month is another idiot idea that will cause more paperwork, fraud, and corruption. The more I hear about the fair tax, the more it sounds like an idea from East Germany in the 1960s.

Several countries use a tiered, flat-rate income tax system and that seems to be the most workable solution.; February 18, 2008 10:15 PM
Anonymous said...: Tax Debt; February 18, 2008 10:29 PM
Nick said...: "Anonymous mreynolds said...

"Fair tax" "Death Tax" all a bunch of rhetorical crap thought up by right wing think tanks. I call them the "punish the poor tax" and the "Darwin Tax" respectively. Taxes need to be paid and those most able to and who are rewarded to live in a so called country of law should be happy to pay them.

February 18, 2008 1:08 PM"

Nope - we're not "punishing the poor", nor are we in any remote danger of doing so. People who paid zero taxes this year will be getting a check from the gubmint to "stimulate the economy". I pumped over 40k into the system in our various income taxes last year, and I won't be getting that check - who's getting punished again? If you consider the finding that the fair tax system would increase the tax rate of the 15k-30k income group from negative 0.5% to negative 0.3%, then please, cry me a river. Please. Begin weeping. Let's all weep that their marginal tax rate will increase by 0.2% to a rate that is still negative.

The poor, the irresponsible, the useless, who have not taken any care with their life decisions or developed their skills to the point where they can produce useful work for society, these groups are not the ones that are punished in this society. They're rewarded. Their tax rate is negative because they deliver zero to society, yet they still take from the system. Accomplishment and productivity - these are the things that are punished in this society. The better you do, the more the punishment is compounded. If the tax schedule was flat, you'd pay proportionally more for every additional dollar you pulled in. But that's not enough punishment - you also get to pay a higher rate per dollar. My bad; guess I should have become an unemployed crackhead, so that society would smile upon me and lavish me with the earnings of those despicable productive/useful people.

In case you didn't catch my subtle drift here, what I was trying to say was, shut the f@ck up.; February 18, 2008 11:08 PM
Anonymous said...: This thing would be horrible for seniors and anyone else living off of savings. I personally would be fine because those taxes being deducted out of my paycheck would stop, so I'd have the extra income to cover the 23% national sales tax. Those living off of savings supposedly would be offset by the "prebates". I noticed on the wiki article the prebate amounts were a flat amount for all household types in the country. How about seniors living in high cost-of-living areas? I doubt the prebate amounts would cover the new national sales tax on groceries, rent, meds, and other necessities. Plus, they'll be double-taxed. For most of them the savings they built up were on after-tax money, and now they'll be taxed again when they spend it.

The only advantages I see are:

* It'll bring people on the fringes of society "into the system" so they can get their monthly prebate check
* Mortgage lenders and anyone else owed money might actually be paid, since incomes would bump up as soon as this is implemented.

And the big giant disadvantage? Consumption will take a big dive. It's already taking a big dive as it is. If implemented today, lots and lots of businesses not selling the essentials of living would fail quickly.; February 18, 2008 11:25 PM
Anonymous said...: And by the way, the middle class families with 2-4 kids SHOULD be paying more than most others as they and their dipshit kids use most of the services. Think about it, as a single professional who cannot afford to buy a home because of the runup, why the fu*k am I paying more in taxes and not getting the deductions? It's complete bullsh*t. And to top it all off, it is these same people who all cry about paying a lot in taxes, yet they are the ones getting all the fu*king deductions - deductions for their dipshit kids, deductions for child care, health care, home interest, college funds, etc. Pull your own fuc*ing weight, I am fucking sick of it

Amen, brother, amen. This is why we'll never have a truly FAIR tax in this country. It's become a needs-based socialist system and no longer a production-based capitalist system.

*********

I'll third the above sentiments and also add that I've had enough of paying extra for health insurance as a single so the rates for families can be subsidized. It seems that singles pay (out of) proportional shares on just about everything.; February 18, 2008 11:43 PM
Anonymous said...: "i did not even waste my time reading about it btw."

Pride in willful ignorance proves the point, yet again: You're an idiot.

We get it. Let up. You're just preaching to the choir now.; February 18, 2008 11:44 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...

1-Make corporations pay their fair share of taxes. A corporation is legally equivalent to an individual, thus they must bear their share of the tax burden.

----------------------------------

who do you think, in the end, pays the corporations taxes? The corporation's customers pay the corporation's taxes. So, we are already paying a consumption tax.

February 18, 2008 9:03 PM
--------------
Wrong, currently corporations pay very little tax due to artful dodging by their staff of attorneys and accounts. Note the posters use of the technical terms "fair share" and "tax burden". Thus the fair share of the tax burden that should be shouldered by corporations is currently being shifted to individuals. If corporations paid their fair share of the tax burden then individuals would not have to be the only ones that pay for the burden of gov't. Forcing corporations to pay their fair share of the tax burden would likely be felt by the loss of jobs in the legal and accounting departments and a few less overly compensated executives!!!; February 19, 2008 12:26 AM
Anonymous said...: Sorry off subject here.

The MSM is finally getting it and here is something most of us at HP already knew.

A handful of state securities regulators and a couple foreclosure-blighted cities have fired the opening shots with lawsuits trying to prove that investment banks and big lenders are guilty of more than just bad business decisions and failing to foresee looming mortgage troubles. Some regulators say greed and fraud underlie much of the subprime mortgage mess that has spread across the broader housing market, triggering a spike in foreclosures.

Aside from the civil cases, the FBI is looking at possible criminal action, focusing on what Wall Street firms knew about the risks of mortgage securities backed by subprime loans, and whether they hid risks from investors.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23224905; February 19, 2008 1:15 AM
Anonymous said...: This tax would put me out of business within a week. The only thing that's kept my sales up these last two years is the declining dollar bringing in foreign buyers. A 25% to 50% price hike would send them all packing. My COGS is fixed and will not decline with falling wages (and this is what the elites are hoping for, that once the income tax goes away they can instantly reduce middle class wages by an equal amount).

We have a small black market now. a huge tax on retail goods will expand that market to every product.; February 19, 2008 1:42 AM
Anonymous said...: 1) you have fewer protections and remedies if you buy your defective product underground. you can't enforce illegal contracts.

Like stuff from China?

2) there's a better chance your product will be defective underground since underground sellers don't have as much incentive to worry about quality. they don't have trademarks that build up good will over time.

Like stuff from small business?

3) I believe legal businesses have greater economies of scale. so if, for instance, the fed government respected state laws that permit medical MJ, any chain store could monitor and sell better quality for less in CA. underground stuff is expensive.

So the consumption tax won't be an added cost to the product and legal business won't cheat on some level?

I think you are wrong on your points but believe like myself you see the profit motive of the fairtax and want it passed. Bear or bull, those with capital will win.; February 19, 2008 2:09 AM
Anonymous said...: i agree the prebate thing is too ripe for fraud, and adds unnecessary bureaucracy. they just shouldn't tax necessities.

A retail sales tax on non-necessities would be worth trying. It would be interesting to see how much business comes back to the US, and how low prices go without the personal and corporate tax companies have to build into their pricing. Among other places, we lose a lot of business to Canada and Ireland because of our tax laws.

I also wonder if American products would get more competitive with imports since they would all be subject to the same retail sales tax, but American companies wouldn't have to build in income and corp taxes into the prices.; February 19, 2008 2:14 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous coke adds life said...

The “Fair Tax” looks to me like another ploy to consolidate wealth by the super-rich in the US. Looking at the chart of projected tax payments based on Boston U data, clearly the biggest winners are at the highest income levels.
===================================
That is what I suspect too. Just a bunch of wealthy people scheming to shift their taxes onto someone else.; February 19, 2008 3:33 AM
Anonymous said...: Step 1: Pass a constitutional amendment to require the Federal government to submit a balanced budget each and every year. No Fed Borrowing, No Fed, No exceptions, ever.

Step 2: After the Fed government has cut spending and balanced the budget 5 years in a row then move to a flat, and hence greatly simplified, income tax.; February 19, 2008 3:37 AM
Anonymous said...: The wealthier you are, the more you benefit from the protections and services of the federal government. If you have more to lose, the fact that the government is protecting your property rights is more valuable to you. Therefore, you should pay more taxes than someone who is poor and has really nothing that is protected by the government. Think about it, if you have nothing, work paycheck to paycheck, what really does it matter to you who the boss is? The government protects you but you are really an asset of the government. You do the work that the government taxes, you produce the goods. You are not free. Only the truly wealthy are free. They can move around wherever, whenever they want. If you are not free, what does the government protect?

My idea? Cut spending 75% tommorrow. Pay off the debt. A few years of suffering for future prosperity. After that, a truly progressive income tax, where all gains in wealth are taxed as income when realized. No housing exemption. The middle class won't mind paying a higher tax on capital gains as long as all ordinary income taxes are lower, and inflation, (without deficit spending) eliminated. Huge estate taxes, no exemptions. Passing wealth through generations is the worst kind of socialization, it is just not government controlled. I would say an estate tax of 90%. Just cause daddy worked hard and was successful doesn't mean junior is. IF junior is a dipshit he deserves it. This perpetuates a rich ruling class in this country. Why are Rockefellers still influential? That family made their money almost 200 years ago for christs sake. That's dumb.; February 19, 2008 4:10 AM
Anonymous said...: If I were a wealthy Babbit I would be pushing for the "fair tax"......just another attempt by CEOs to become even more wealthy.

The current tax system is a loop-hole-laden behemoth but the "fair tax" would be even worse for middle and lower class America.; February 19, 2008 5:18 AM
Anonymous said...: Now, brace yourself for five more credit sectors that are falling victim to collapse:

The nation's largest mortgage insurers — responsible for protecting lenders and investors from defaults on millions of homes — are being ravaged by losses. MGIC Investment Corp., swamped with claims, just posted a $1.47 billion loss. Triad Guaranty, a much smaller mortgage insurer, reported a $75 million loss.

Municipalities, public hospitals and other institutions have been slammed by the failure of nearly 1,000 auctions for their "auction-rate" securities. Their borrowing costs have tripled and quadrupled — to 15%, 20%, even 30%. Survival money is drying up.

Low-rated corporate bonds, which had fueled a wave of leveraged corporate buyouts in recent years, are being abandoned by investors. Their prices are plunging to the lowest levels in history. Property and casualty insurers, among those loaded with corporate bonds, are taking it on the chin.

More hedge funds are getting slammed. CSO Partners, for example, has lost so much money and suffered such a massive run on its assets, its manager (Citigroup) was recently forced to shut the hedge fund's doors to further withdrawals by investors.

Commercial real estate credit is collapsing. Regional and super-regional banks are taking big hits. Life and health insurance companies will get smacked; February 19, 2008 6:11 AM
Anonymous said...: so if most people don't want to pay income taxes,why aren't ron paul and huckabee the front runners for the republican party?

most people are against immigration reform(amnesty), yet it is obama and McCain who are pro amnesty who are the front runners for the white house.

we will never have a fair tax implemented.corporations need their welfare checks(bailout money),we are going to keep fighting the "war on terror" for a long, long time. so you get the idea.

I won't waste my time voting this November. that's for sure.; February 19, 2008 7:06 AM
Anonymous said...: Not just No, but Hell No. it is not a fair tax, it is a consumption tax. Arguably fairer than our current system but still highly flawed.

A better alternative is a flat tax. Eliminate virtually all exemptions. Set a payment floor that is reasonable and watch the revenue flow into the treasury.

My two cents, for what it's worth.

BTW, while I dislike McCain, I will not assist in handing the socialist party absolute control over the Courts. Don't kid yourselves, vote the Rule of 9 or rue the day you put Obama into the Whiote House with a democrat controlled congress. There will be at least 2 and maybe 3 seats open on the Supreme Court in the near future.

And Keith, before you tell me that many of the liberals on the court were appointed by republicans, they were still a damn sight better than the alternatives. At least there was some attempt at moderation. You let Obama have a choice that will be rubber stamped by the democrats and we will see a true erosion of our civil liberties in the name of "progressive thought."; February 19, 2008 7:20 AM
Lost Cause said...: It should all be done in carbon trading.; February 19, 2008 8:09 AM
Anonymous said...: keith said...

You don't think America has an underground economy problem today?

go talk to the strippers, bartenders, drug dealers, hookers, ebay sellers, 50 million illegals or the REIC today

You're kidding yourselves. There is massive tax avoidance today in the USA. Got a W2 job? Great - you're paying into a system that many are thumbing their noses at.

---------------

AMEN TO THAT!

I quit my salaried job last year and went independent. I do the same work basically but make significantly more money. Some of it I declare, some I don't.

And even on the money I do declare, I write off so much as business expenses, as a % I pay much less in tax than I used to.

It's all a game. The only people truly screwed by the income tax are regular, salaried people on W2. Everyone else gets to fuck around with their income/deductions to make it fit.

If you are opposed to the fair tax you either

a) don't work andwant everyone else to keep paying income tax but you

b) are an idiot

c) are a socialist (see b and a)

d) don't understand it; February 19, 2008 11:23 AM
Edwin Alvarez said...: People do not be duped. There is nothing fair about a fair tax when the middle class and poor people of this country have to pay more for the basic needs of everyday life than the rich.

Carbon taxes which supposedly is going to help protect the environment is also the wrong way to go. That is essentially taxing me on the air I breathe. Both of these proposals only serve to increase the power of the federal government, and we already know where that leads to (more wars, corruption)

Eliminating the income tax and replacing it with nothing while actually making the size of government smaller is the ideal option. Without the income tax people will actually keep more of what they earn. People commit crimes because this system only serves to cheat and destroy instead of promoting work and savings. Imagine living in a world where a person earning $25,000 can live a decent life without having to depend on government handouts. I don't care how much money the rich have, just leave your fellow man alone with this burdensome load. Now thats FAIR.; February 19, 2008 2:29 PM
Anonymous said...: All those ranting about charitable contribution ...

You would be contributing pre-tax money ... why do you expect to receive a rebate on PRE-TAX money.

The rebates for charitable contributions in place right now are to refund you the taxes on that portion of your income ... making it ... yup you guessed right ... PRE-TAX money after the refund.; February 19, 2008 5:26 PM
Anonymous said...: End the income tax and replace it with nothing. Cut spending accordingly.

Things to cut:

1) Dept of Education
2) Dept of Agriculture
3) Foreign Aid
4) Most of Commerce Department
5) Most Overseas Military Bases; February 19, 2008 6:30 PM
Anonymous said...: Wrong, currently corporations pay very little tax due to artful dodging by their staff of attorneys and accounts. Note the posters use of the technical terms "fair share" and "tax burden". Thus the fair share of the tax burden that should be shouldered by corporations is currently being shifted to individuals. If corporations paid their fair share of the tax burden then individuals would not have to be the only ones that pay for the burden of gov't. Forcing corporations to pay their fair share of the tax burden would likely be felt by the loss of jobs in the legal and accounting departments and a few less overly compensated executives!!!
----------------------------

I said nothing about how much taxes they pay. I said, if you were to increase taxes and make corporations "pair their fair share" where do you think the money will actually come from? It has to come from either:

a) people who buy the corporations products and or services.

b) cost reduction (this can also be through lower pay increases or outright pay reductions).

So, in the end, it is the corporations customers and or employees who end up paying the tax increase indirectly.

I am not arguing for lowering corporation taxes. I am just saying be aware of how the tax will really be paid. Unlike the government, corporations don't have printing presses to manufacture more money. Or if they do (via accounting tricks) it will eventually catch up to them.; February 19, 2008 7:54 PM
Anonymous said...: How much do you spend on consumption? The rich mostly save their money. Almost no one spends 500K on consumption.

----------------------------------

Eventually it will be taxed. the fair tax is more of a "tax defferal". By deferring you encourage people to save and invest which will increase tax receipts either by comsumption in the future or an inheritance tax.; February 19, 2008 7:56 PM
Anonymous said...: No, I'm against the Fair Tax New World Order trick. This is another scheme that favors only the wealthy.

My entire family and co-workers are voting for Hillary.; February 19, 2008 9:10 PM
Anonymous said...: does anyone see aproblem with the fair tax and Roth IRA's double-taxing retirement savings?; February 19, 2008 9:12 PM
Anonymous said...: Example: in Russia any resident, including foreigners, can register as a "private entrepreneur" for a broad range of activities and pay a FLAT 6% income tax (or a 15% profit tax). That might not be the Fair Tax but looks very close and promising!

Hey Andrew, don't forget to add the
Russian Mafia Extortion on Business Owners Tax; February 19, 2008 9:14 PM
Anonymous said...: Geez, another trick to fool the sheep and benefit the Republican wealthy.

Let me make clear for the dumb and expose the thieves behind this bad idea:

Let's say that we have a person earning only a $1 and who needs to pay $0.23 in tax to live on.

Now compare that to another Republican person who earns $100 and pays the same exact amount in taxes to live on.

Any questions?; February 19, 2008 9:22 PM
Anonymous said...: >> My entire family and co-workers are voting for Hillary.

I hope someone in the bunch goes postal on the rest of you.; February 19, 2008 9:29 PM
Anonymous said...: Can we just eliminate Social Security instead?

That's a tax which is a giant black hole. I am paying into a system that won't be paying me back by the time I am eligible.; February 19, 2008 10:45 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wrong, currently corporations pay very little tax due to artful dodging by their staff of attorneys and accounts. Note the posters use of the technical terms "fair share" and "tax burden". Thus the fair share of the tax burden that should be shouldered by corporations is currently being shifted to individuals. If corporations paid their fair share of the tax burden then individuals would not have to be the only ones that pay for the burden of gov't. Forcing corporations to pay their fair share of the tax burden would likely be felt by the loss of jobs in the legal and accounting departments and a few less overly compensated executives!!!
----------------------------

I said nothing about how much taxes they pay. I said, if you were to increase taxes and make corporations "pair their fair share" where do you think the money will actually come from? It has to come from either:

a) people who buy the corporations products and or services.

b) cost reduction (this can also be through lower pay increases or outright pay reductions).

So, in the end, it is the corporations customers and or employees who end up paying the tax increase indirectly.

I am not arguing for lowering corporation taxes. I am just saying be aware of how the tax will really be paid. Unlike the government, corporations don't have printing presses to manufacture more money. Or if they do (via accounting tricks) it will eventually catch up to them.

February 19, 2008 7:54 PM
--------
Nope, I think this is the case of the uninformed (That's you) being entrenched in their biased position to the point that they are blind to reality.

Of course you've said nothing about the amount of taxes corporations are paying, I'm the one that's pointing out corporations are not paying their "fair share" of the "Tax burden" you nimrod.

If corporations raise prices to offset paying the taxes they should have paid all along then they will be altering the point along the consumer surplus continuum and the supply and demand curve will shift to a point where a lower amount of product will be consumed, and while they will be getting a larger amount of per unit revenue their overall revenue will fall. Hence as I pointed out corporations will instead keep the price point the same and just cut costs internally. But feel free to purchase more yourself because you seem all for paying for corporations' fair share of the tax burden. I'll stand on the sidelines smirking at your dumb@$$.; February 20, 2008 12:50 AM
Anonymous said...: I support the fair tax.

It greatly benefits prudent people who live within their means.

It also gives taxpayers a clearer picture of how government spending is having an impact on their tax situation. It would be tough to increase this tax as everybody would notice. However lowering the tax and cutting government spending (for the first time in years) might suddenly become an option for lawmakers.

I also believe that the fair tax will make US exports more competitive and spur investment in US companies by forigners.

However it is probably a vote loser as many people who consider themselves "middle class" want to live beyond their means. This excess consumption will mean that these people will be disadvantaged for their "lifestyle choices".

Also the politicians & lobbyists love the current tax code because they can always pretend they are giving people (or companies) a break, when the fact is that taxes are too high to begin with.; February 20, 2008 2:01 AM
Anonymous said...: Before you decide that the fair tax is a no-go why not run the numbers for yourself:
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=calculator

Here you can see if you benefit or not.; February 20, 2008 2:21 AM
Anonymous said...: Bankers DON'T CARE how their interest payments are made.

Politicians prefer the current system for its societal engineering possibilities.

But the BANKERS run the show.

The ONLY reason for either tax is to pay interest to the bankers.

Both taxes are a scam.

Even fairly bright people here don't get that.

Wake up.; February 20, 2008 6:43 AM
Anonymous said...: Why is it always assumed that if you earn more more than someone else that you should pay progressively more tax. They're always on about big corporations, but the real point of gettin' screwed actually starts at about the $75,000 household income mark (two people working for roughly $38,000). Below that you get a free ride, about that you start carrying everyone else. What does everyone making even a little more money have to carry all the slugs. What's the incentive to try to make more money. Effing stupid.; February 20, 2008 12:44 PM
Anonymous said...: The fair tax is the solution. People would have more money to spend, more incentive to save, and all would get wealthier which would in turn yield to more taxes for the government. I vote for fair tax.; February 20, 2008 5:27 PM
Anonymous said...: Below that you get a free ride, about that you start carrying everyone else. What does everyone making even a little more money have to carry all the slugs.

It's because of that Republican selfishness that you're getting Obama as president, while the next one will probably be a Mexican or Cuban. Can't you people realize that the more you screw the minorities or make harder for the low income with no education majority in the country, the more they vote idiots into office? It's your own future at risk and I'm not sure if you've noticed but quality of life in the US is not getting any better.; February 20, 2008 6:56 PM

HousingPANIC - The Housing Bubble Blog with an Attitude Problem, 2005 - 2008

February 18, 2008

HousingPANIC Stupid Question of the Day

118 comments:

About Me

HP blogs & websites

Blog Archive