- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Questions about a federal fair tax.
Posted on 6/18/24 at 4:53 pm to Jax-Tiger
Posted on 6/18/24 at 4:53 pm to Jax-Tiger
Solid question and one I haven't considered in that way before. If there were some price creep, my gut reaction is that that could be offset by bringing home your entire paycheck as opposed to the current withholding scheme.
I'd gladly pay an additional 10% on new purchases of it meant keeping 35%+ of income
I'd gladly pay an additional 10% on new purchases of it meant keeping 35%+ of income
1
Posted on 6/18/24 at 5:10 pm to Jax-Tiger
quote:
Okay, let's say you win this point. Compliance costs go away completely for consumers who don't own retail businesses (the vast majority of people, by the way). Compliance costs are REDUCED significantly, for corporations. Isn't that enough? Do you have to split hairs over "reduced" vs "eliminated" when 150+ million people will no longer have to pay $150 bucks for Turbo Tax (or pay big bucks for an accountant to do them), spend 20 hours doing their taxes, saving receipts in a shoe box in case they are audited, paying quarterly taxes, filling out 1099 forms, and then worry whether or not they are going to get audited for the next 7 years? That is enough in it's own self, no? And why are you so worried about whether a corporation has only "reduced" vs "eliminated" burden of compliance? Is that the hill you want to die on? "Well, Vox said Amazon would have no burden of compliance, but they still have 10% of what they had before, so he's WRONG!"? Some people will cut off their nose to spite their face. The Fair Tax is not perfect, but it is waaaaaaaaaaay better than our current system.
All of that word salad might have made a great point if I had taken a stance against the fair tax. In fact, I believe I said I was open minded.
However, it's been my experience that non-income taxes still carry a great compliance burden. That's especially true in jurisdictions that have become more reliant on them for revenue. The burden doesn't just evaporate, which is what your buddy suggested. That's the point.
Posted on 6/18/24 at 5:12 pm to VoxDawg
quote:
I'd gladly pay an additional 10% on new purchases of it meant keeping 35%+ of income
Bingo. Even 20% additional would be fine. Remember, you will have your entire paycheck PLUS the prebate...
Posted on 6/18/24 at 5:16 pm to Jax-Tiger
One point that nobody has mentioned is having skin in the game. With everyone paying taxes, people take a more genuine interest in not wasting the money. Most people are fine with spending money on wasteful spending projects if they believe the money is coming out of someone else's pocket...
Posted on 6/18/24 at 5:34 pm to Jax-Tiger
quote:
One point that nobody has mentioned is having skin in the game.
I did, back on page 5; they don't care. "Fair" seems to be the driving concern.
Posted on 6/18/24 at 5:37 pm to Jax-Tiger
It can certainly be levied different ways.
A house cost could be done at closing.
The challenge is making sure that building materials don’t escape taxation by having them bought and used for other reasons…
A house cost could be done at closing.
The challenge is making sure that building materials don’t escape taxation by having them bought and used for other reasons…
Posted on 6/18/24 at 5:52 pm to Jorts R Us
quote:
The burden doesn't just evaporate, which is what your buddy suggested. That's the point.
Maybe evaporated is not the right word, but significantly reduced is accurate. Remember, in most states, companies have both corporate and sales taxes.
Posted on 6/18/24 at 5:55 pm to Jax-Tiger
Why not a VAT tax?
Posted on 6/18/24 at 5:57 pm to Jax-Tiger
quote:
Maybe evaporated is not the right word, but significantly reduced is accurate. Remember, in most states, companies have both corporate and sales taxes.
It's all in the execution. Learn from the mistakes made in Europe and Canada. Keep the base broad. The more you reduce "special cases," the less you have to audit.
Posted on 6/18/24 at 5:57 pm to RiverCityTider
Vat is built in and less transparent
I like having the tax shown as a separate item
I like having the tax shown as a separate item
Posted on 6/18/24 at 8:07 pm to Flats
quote:
"Fair" seems to be the driving concern.
Not confiscating your wealth at the point of a gun is the driving concern.
I almost wish that the word "Fair" wasn't even in the common name for the plan, because there seems to be an inherent class warfare/strife component embedded in the criticism directed at it.
Posted on 6/18/24 at 8:07 pm to Jorts R Us
quote:
Learn from the mistakes made in Europe and Canada. Keep the base broad. The more you reduce "special cases," the less you have to audit.
Who wants to tell him?
Posted on 6/18/24 at 8:12 pm to VoxDawg
quote:
Not confiscating your wealth at the point of a gun is the driving concern.
It's the driving concern of people who want to keep the tax code "fair", as they see it.
If we're going to get a handle on spending we've got to get everybody paying. I'd almost take a flat income tax over a consumption tax that still excuses half the country from paying it.
Posted on 6/18/24 at 8:46 pm to Flats
Even at the poverty level, there's virtually no one who's going to be spending less than they're getting on the prebate. Our society isn't built like that.
Posted on 6/18/24 at 8:53 pm to Jorts R Us
quote:
Learn from the mistakes made in Europe and Canada. Keep the base broad. The more you reduce "special cases," the less you have to audit.
Thr Fair Tax is for you, then. It's a simple 23% inclusive tax with no exceptions for food, medicine, etc. Everybody pays on all retail purchases. That's it.
Posted on 6/18/24 at 8:53 pm to Flats
quote:
I'd almost take a flat income tax over a consumption tax that still excuses half the country from paying it.
You could argue it does that with the poor with the prebate which sounds like the most massive increase in government ever, but really it's the rich who get to enjoy the cut in taxes. The poor already spend every dime they make simply to survive so going after them seems nonsensical, but the middle class will be experiencing a tax increase with it as well. The wealthy who don't spend everything they take in get a cut. The "fair" tax is a regressive structure by nature that it seems attempts to compensate with the prebate, but it would be just a massive increase in government just so people can pretend they get to keep their whole ?
Posted on 6/18/24 at 9:01 pm to DavidTheGnome
I don't get why you support the more violent tax system over the less violent one.
The government will get their pound of flesh either way.
Let's do it in the least intrusive way.
Posted on 6/18/24 at 9:04 pm to VoxDawg
quote:
Who wants to tell him?
Tell me what? Tell me you know exactly how it will be enacted before it's enacted?
This post was edited on 6/18/24 at 9:15 pm
Posted on 6/18/24 at 9:52 pm to TrueTiger
quote:
I don't get why you support the more violent tax system over the less violent one.
Not sure how you pay yours but I've never experienced violence paying my taxes
Posted on 6/18/24 at 10:06 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
You could argue it does that with the poor with the prebate
Because that’s exactly what it does. It exempts them from paying the tax so others can pay more.
Page 8 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News