Sqrl said:
JMan said:
Andir said:
JMan said:
Simple: Large amount of income =/= being rich =/= paying more tax.
1. People who are rich and save their money (to make more money with) aren't spending it. So that ties up a good deal of the "potential" tax.
2. Just because you have a large income does not necessarily mean you live the wonderful life. 100,000 in NYC doesn't go nearly as far as it does in Denver, Colorado. The expense difference causes those people in higher cost of living states to pay a larger portion of the taxes. Is that "fair"?
3. Large Families may have a large income and a huge expense bill. Is it fair to make them pay more tax when their overall standard of living may be lower? By the way, poor people are more likely to have large families than rich.
And that's just off the top, without even digging into this. I'm sure there's some standard response to all of those, so go ahead and post them and let's see where this goes. By the way, I'm heading out, so don't expect a response from me anytime soon. And I'm not opposed to the fair tax. I'm posting what I consider my first concerns the concept. |
My few concerns on your perspective here are that there a very few people (percentage wise) that are in the very high tax bracket and those with money will likely find a way to spend it (or whoever inherits it will.) In essense, the money will be spent in one form or another, those that save their money for a later date re-inforce the economy later when it's needed. If they are out of a job and not contributing to the income tax, they are most likely still spending money and paying the consumption tax. In effect, those that save for a rainy day are protecting the economy in the grand scale of things. And about the cost of living. The 23% you would be spending on everyday things would likely be less than you pay out in taxes unless you are one of those that lives with your credit card maxxed out and every penny goes to repay that month to month. The poor will likely be those that spend the entire paycheck as you noted, but the percentage going out is less than that being spent in income taxes, add that to the "prebate" and you'll likely have more money in the "less fortunate" people's hands year to year. |
Well, the problem here is that the wealthy accumulate wealth, not spend it. Sure, they spend some, but have you seen the top earners in the world? Do they stagnate? Do they go down each year? No, as I recall, they have more money year after year. It's typically a function of "money working to make more money". If they pass it on to their heirs, their heirs are now wealthy and just as likely to hold it. But under the current tax system, that money can't pass from generation to generation untouched because of the inheritance tax. That encourages the person to do something with it rather than just hoard it, because eventually the government will get it anyway. And no matter how you argue it, there is simply no way that I would end up paying less in federal taxes overall. If I pay less, then somebody else has to pay more because the federal government is spending it. They'll set the rate high enough to keep the total tax revenue the same (or more). The only way I pay less is if the federal government stops spending as much and lowers the tax rate. And that's applicable to both versions of the tax code anyway. |
Paragraph by paragraph: No they do spend their money, but they don't spend it on frivolous things, they invest it in business, real estate, bonds, etc.... and it is very healthy for the economy. There aren't rich people who simply have a giant vault of $100 bills or anything. Now, Ideally there would be incentives to get all people to invest some of their extra cash but those details can get sticky very quickly. You would very likely pay less taxes because the government would be spending less. The government would be spending less because they would not be propping up one of the most expensives beaurocracies in the world...the I.R.S.. I'm sure someone could rustle up the expenditure statistics for the IRS, and I bet they aren't pretty. |
Except for the prebate commission which would take nearly as much if not more man power as they IRS. To run the registration centers in every town, heck a few in every town since the poor can't find good travel to get to places. I've known people who couldn't get welfare because they couldn't get a ride there.
Oh, and the agents needed to audit the prebate numbers, to make sure that nobody is frauding the system, oh and the agents needed to audit every buisness in the US to make sure they arn't selling goods as for other sales instead of final goods.
I'm not seeing where the cutbacks in the IRS would be made.
