| |
  
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||
The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul or his Presidential Committee. The content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original poster, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This site may contain adult language and adult concepts. If you are offended by such content, or feel you may be offended by such content, point your browser to a different site IMMEDIATELY. For more, read the Full Disclaimer
© 2007 - 2011 by The Daily Paul. Not paid for by, nor officially affiliated in any way with Ron Paul. | General Site Disclaimer | DMCA Disclaimer | Advertise here
this basically means that
this basically means that programs like medicare and social security and locked in with consumption ... meaning if people don't spend as much ... they can't receive the revenue in taxes which means the program will end ...
this is very confusing ... i would probably hold my nose and support it ... but fixing prices 23% higher on certain goods is not a good idea ... it is a signal to producers to stop producing goods
In many countries, they use
In many countries, they use a Value Added Tax. Also, things like food and clothing aren't taxed apparently.
There is a fatal flaw in the Fair Tax idea
I read the book and it makes sense and is probably better than the income tax system that we have now. But I don't believe it will ever pass. The authors of the book make one very foundational and incorrect statement that blows their whole idea out of the water. They state that the 16th Amendment gives the government the authority to tax as much of our income as they want - all the way up to 100%.
The USSC has said on several occasions that the 16th Amendment did not give the government "any new powers of taxation." In other words, if they couldn't tax it before the 16th Am, they can't tax it now. Put aside the question of whether the 16th Am. was even properly ratified. The IRS claims to get its authority to tax from that amendment.
The Constitution requires apportionment of any direct taxes. A direct tax includes any tax that you cannot reasonably avoid (like a sales tax on everything, for instance). The income tax laws are written very precisely to ensure that most Americans are not subject to its provisions. Otherwise it would be unconstitutional. Of course, it's also written to make it appear that every American is subject to its provisions. The whole thing is a fraud in its application, but it cannot be declared unconstitutional (because it's not, at least according to the black letter of the law).
Here's the kicker. A tax on everything is a direct tax, and it would not be apportioned. THE FAIR TAX IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. That is what the Fair Tax proponents either do not understand or do not want to acknowledge. If passed, somebody would take it to court and there is too high a chance that the government would get caught with its pants down and that the legislation would be declared unconstitutional. Right now they have a system that works - a system that is technically Constitutional due to its limited scope, but in practice engulfs just about every citizen and compels us all to pay taxes out of fear or ignorance by misapplication of the tax code. I don't think they will allow a blatantly unconstitutional piece of legislation like this to emerge.
---
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms - should be a convenience store, not a government agency!
Half a loaf is better than none?
The FAIR Tax, I would guess, is substantially better than what we have now, for the simple reason that spending money on junk is not mandatory in our society.
FAIR Tax is substantially worse, however, than eliminating the Income Tax.
But I have no realistic expectations that the Income Tax will ever be dismantled, because there just isn't enough interest out there in attempting it.
There isn't even very much interest in dismantling the Income Tax in our movement. People would rather talk about ending the Fed, gun control, States' Rights, and other issues.
So realistically, we should put aside any ideas of ending the Income Tax, because almost no one is interested. In that case an alternate plan is worth considering, in my opinion.
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
Ok, let's look at this closely.
The gov't has a tax problem.
Boomers are the massive population demographic, and they've paid taxes all their working lives, so the gov't has siphoned-off as much from them as it could get already.
Now, Boomers are coming into retirement age, where they will place a large tax burden on the rest of the population demographics.
So, what's a mother to do?
Well, simple.
The Boomers have retirement accounts which are going to be spent during their retirement, but they won't be subjected to as high percentages of income taxes because they are retired.
So, switch the tax method to a sales tax on everything, so that they can carve off as much more of the Boomers' money as they can, as they spend it in their retirement years.
Carve the meat from their bones with an income tax, all their working lives, and then switch to a sales tax to scoop their guts out as they attempt to enjoy their retirement.
The "whip-saw" classic.
This ain't any intention of making a "fairer tax" system.
This is all about how they can continue to target the money from the largest population demographic bulge, and get as much as they can from whatever the Boomers have left.
Be realistic, and it all makes sense.
The gov't has no intention or desire to improve life or reduce taxes for any of us. They just can see where the money is, that they can get their evil lizard claws into, and that's where they are going.
Wow, excellent insight.
As a baby-boomer approaching retirement age, I should have recognized this factor.
I must confess that the fact that I won't be able to retire and have no intentions of retiring voluntarily caused me not to scrutinize this tax proposal closely enough.
This only confirms what I have believed for a long time; we need an ASSET TAX to replace the income tax.
This would not only remove the disincentives to saving and productivity brought about by the income tax; it would also prevent the accumulation of vast amounts of wealth by the economic parasites that are currently in the process of destroying the American middle class.
******************************
Natural Law and Natural Rights
http://jim.com/rights.html
******************************
******************************
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive."
I used to think the Fair Tax
I used to think the Fair Tax was a good idea until I understood the Federal Reserve. All transparency dissappers with the Fed. So while better than the income tax, it still does nothing to address the real problem.
5% of people make things happen
10% of people watch things happen
85% say "What happened?"
Isn't the sales tax also a
Isn't the sales tax also a regressive tax, in that it would affect the lower income folks moreso than the wealthy?
Yep, I agree. Pass the
Yep, I agree. Pass the "fair" tax, and then subsequently fail to completely abolish the income tax. The sheeple will be hoodwinkt once again.
You want to talk about
You want to talk about starting an uprising. My biggest fear would be the desire to add just one more penny to the sales tax mentality.
Definitely BETTER than...
what we have now, and it actually has a snowball's chance in passing.
Consider that Americans spend 300 Billion in *complying* with tax code, on top of paying their taxes! That alone justifies it to me.
Along with lots of unemployed IRS agents, lots of unemployed CPAs as well.
--------
Fossils Rock!
'Cause there's a monster on the loose
Although not perfect, I do
Although not perfect, I do see the FairTax as an improvement from the current system. A few things to remember about the 23% tax rate is that
1. Companies should be able to charge less for their goods and services since they would no longer pay corporate income tax.
2. Your personal income will go up since there would be no income tax
3. You get a prebate check each month that reimburses a portion of the consumption taxes that you pay.
Here's some of the things I like about the FairTax:
1. No income tax - no need to hassle with all the paperwork and divulge personal information to the government. Also, no jumping through hoops to take advantage of tax breaks.
2. No corporate taxes - companies can start to make decisions based on what is best for their company and customers and rather than what will give them the biggest tax advantage.
3. Transparency: have a system that everyone understands and knows if the tax rate is going up or down.
what about the 23% sales tax
on all the goods used to manufacture the product, then passed on in cost..WHAM 56% tax....the devil is always in the details and the "Fair Tax" has evolved. Many little details have been added and then removed. My favorite is the "monthly refunds", again pushing the burden onto the most productive and establishing at least a 2 class system. I'll wait until it actually gets to the floor for debate before passing a final judgement. Until then : Becareful of the Devil you don't know.
I agree you have to look at
I agree you have to look at the details... the FairTax only applies to final retail goods. It's not a VAT tax which is what you described.
Everyone gets a monthly refund. Yes someone with an income at or poverty pay zero, and gradually grows from there based on how much income is used for purchases rather than saving. I wouldn't consider this any worse than what we currently have.
2008 US revenues $2.524
2008 US revenues $2.524 trillion.
2008 US expenditures $2.979 trillion.
2008 US GDP: $14.33 trillion.
Source: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/...
To replace the revenues it would take approx 17.61% tax on everything that is calculated in the GDP.
To replace the expenditures, or rather to cover the cost of expenditures, we would have needed approx 20.79% tax on everything included in the GDP.
23% might give the fed enough in order to make certain purchases exempt or exempt an annual amount up to a certain limit PLUS covering the expenditures.
One thing that worries me about this is the possibility, as I believe Ron Paul mentioned sometime last year, that the Congress might approve this national sales tax but conveniently forget to get rid of the income tax....
The way I understand it, Ron Paul does prefer the Fair Tax over the Income Tax but he still would prefer no tax at all. Everyone should take notice that Ron Paul is not listed as a cosponsor of H.R. 25.
Also, an article from mises.org regarding HR 25: http://mises.org/story/1814
...
The other day I was
The other day I was researching about the constitutionality of taxation. And we have direct taxes and indirect taxes. The Constitution says that taxation should be apportioned according to the population. So, I'm guessing it means if a state, let's say, California, has roughly 10% of the national population, would that mean that California pays a 10% tax or taxes equal to 10% of the national tax? Income tax vs Sales tax, apparently a state sales tax is more common than a state income tax. I'm leaning towards a sales tax I think.
No tax on investments!
That is part of it. If you think it is bad, you haven't read enough. People came up with this, not the government. You need to give it an educated chance and not just ditz it when you know nothing about it.
Nothing more than a 23% Tarriff...except
... all domestic goods are tarriffed as well. What ever happened to States Taxed by aportionment, or does the Constituion not matter on this issue?
The way it is now
is worse. The govt. is going to get the money, the way it is now is painful, extremely painful. Read the FairTax and you will see how fantastic it is.
If you can get naysayers to actually read...
...the Fairtax and understand it will abolish the IRS and let you keep EVERY PENNEY you earn. It only taxes NEW items -- used items are not taxed. It puts the actual money collected by government in your face on every new purchase -- important to educate many on how much the government actually takes from you. And think about it, the coffers of government would be tied to the economy and capitalism. The more they try to screw it up, the less revenue they get.
After the Fairtax, the goal is no tax. But realistically, there is no way the government is going to go to no tax as a first step. The limited thinking of many legislators does not allow for it and there isn't enough of a revolt in America to demand it.
I've supported the Fairtax for a couple of years now. In fact, when I first found out Ron Paul would vote for it, it just made it even better.
----------------------
23% so how do they collect
23%
so how do they collect for Social security and medicare? I suppose they can raise the rate! this thing is not good. are they going to tax everything that is bought? food, etc... I think for most they will end up paying more!
fine by me to get rid of the IRS tho! plus NO ONE can cheat on taxes!
"When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny."
-Thomas Jefferson
I am more concerned about the return of my money than the return on my money. --Mark Twain
“A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself: but the simple pass on, and are punished.” (Prov. 22:3; 27:12 KJV)
Hey McCain-----┌П┐(◣_◢)┌П┐
Social security and medicare
Social security and medicare are included. Regarding the 23%... look at this example: a bike that would sell for $100 bike probably has close to $23 of embedded taxes built into the price (taxes paid by every supplier and distributor and service provider at every stage of production which wouldn't apply since FairTax only applies to final retail goods). So, in this example, the $100 bike will actually cost $77 which ends up costing $100 with the tax. Also, don't forget that you would get a prebate check each month.
To be clear the 23% tax is calculated as an inclusive tax rate as opposed to what we're normally used to thinking of which is an exclusive tax rate. The exclusive tax rate is about 30%.
23% Inclusive Tax Example:
$100 sale - $23 is amount for taxes $77 towards the actual product.
Sorry,
But you actually believe this is going to happen? A little naive I fear.
www.libertyrestorationproject.org
"We are the inheritors of the American Enlightenment, which tells us that Individual Liberty always trumps collectivism in all forms."
www.libertyrestorationproject.org
"We are the inheritors of the American Enlightenment, which tells us that Individual Liberty always trumps collectivism in all forms."
You need to go read it.
You don't know anything about it, but you say it is not good. Great.
Something bouncing around in my head.
How does the Fair tax adress the problem of monetary inflation? Since the Fair tax is a percentage, it is automatically adjusted for inflation where incomes during the coming hyperinflationary period might not adjust as quickly?
that's a great question!
!!!Truth is treason in the EMPIRE OF LIES!!!
" Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of they day; but a series of oppresssions...pursued unalterably, through every change of ministers, too plainly proove delibrate, systematical plan of reducing us to slavery..."
Tho
try the calculator to see for yourself
I would obviously rather have NO TAX too, but it aint gonna happen. This to me is atleast a way to put some of our money back into our own pockets...
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=calculator
!!!Truth is treason in the EMPIRE OF LIES!!!
" Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of they day; but a series of oppresssions...pursued unalterably, through every change of ministers, too plainly proove delibrate, systematical plan of reducing us to slavery..."
Tho
A 23% sales tax on top of your state county and city sells tax
Would put a sales taxes around 30% +. People on fixed incomes, what about them? what about all the unemployed right now, with numbers growing? The only way I could support a national sells tax is limit it to 5%, No federal sales tax on food and utilities.
All those unemployed people are causing a strain on the US government, not being able to collect income taxes plus the states having to pay out unemployment benefits and not collecting a state income tax.
I would support a flat 10%
I would support a flat 10% sales tax with NO other taxes added on like a VAT. the problem is the idiots in government will find a way to screw us one way or the other.. I think the IRS budget is 500 billion! (or maybe is 50 billion) either way that would be a huge savings!
"When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny."
-Thomas Jefferson
I am more concerned about the return of my money than the return on my money. --Mark Twain
“A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself: but the simple pass on, and are punished.” (Prov. 22:3; 27:12 KJV)
Hey McCain-----┌П┐(◣_◢)┌П┐
Flat tax leaves IRS IN
We want IRS OUT. Flat tax leaves the government collecting and using your company to grabl the tax from the employees and send it in, reporting all income to the government, keeping us on a string every year, making us keep records, then they will find deductions, etc. Flat tax is worse than the FairTax by far.
The best thing to do is read the website. There are so many great things about FairTax, it is hard to list them all. Prebate $s for everyone, tourists get taxed, aliens get taxed, no one avoids unfairly, cost of product before tax reduces to about the amount of the tax, pay as you go, no preparation fees, no storage of documents, no worry about IRS coming after you, no audits, no deadlines, avoid tax by buying used, pay easily just like a salestax, state sales taxes would probably come down because they will be paid to collect this tax, jobs increase, companies don't have to account for employees taxes (never have figured out why companies put up with this), no matching ss for companies, accounting is for the purpose of taking care of your own business instead of for reporting to the feds. Just tons of advantages.