sieanr said: However, I do have one very serious question; Do you think that Americans are innately predisposed to be more charitable than people in all other nations?

I am not, however, I know about 10 people that make up for my disposition.

(And I'd really like to know how to delete these damn outlines in Firefox as highlighting the box and hitting delete doesn't work!)

 

sieanr said: For starters I'd say there is more to charity than simple donating money, such as volunteer work. But I digress. The big flaw with measuring money donated as the basis for how generous a nation is comes down to how wealthy that particular nation happens to be and how the super wealthy and corporations can skew that number. For example, people in zimbabwe could donate a larger percentage of their time and money to charity than the majority of american citizens. However, add in people like Bill Gates and corporations donating billions and suddenly that skews the average to be greater than Zimbabwe. Of course this is a hypothetical, but certainly you get the idea. However, I do have one very serious question; Do you think that Americans are innately predisposed to be more charitable than people in all other nations?

 

obviously, not in people's DNAs.  but the way the american society and culture is set up, i believe americans are indeed more charitable than most nations.

i don't know about anything else, but when i look at american university endowments, the figures are amazing.  harvard and princeton both exceed oxford and cambridge, despite the latter two being hundreds of years older (all 4 are above $10 billion, i believe).  and then you have schools like yale, MIT, columbia, brown all having endowments not far away from those schools.  i don't have the link, but a top german research institute was complaining about european institute's lack of endownment to hire top professors.

being chinese, i know chinese people are very stingy.  wealth is, because of cultural reasons, passed down from one generation to the next, with very little of it going to charity.  this is a common topic in china and apparently it's changing a bit, as people actually look to america as a model these days.

on a grassroot level, i can say with certainty that americans are definitely very charitable.  as a concrete example, encouragement of volunteering work starts in middle school and high school, if not earlier.  i don't know about europeans, but i imagine they have a similar system as americans, since some of the awards for community and social work are actually based from england.  the american red cross and organizations like united way, as bureacratic and as much bad press they've received lately, are as well run as can be expected for non-profit organizations.

i think it's also unfair to use a "hour/person" to evaluate charity.  an hour for a person making $100,000 is a more valuable than the same hour for a person making $25,000.  the $100,000 person would most likely make a bigger impact by donating his salary for an equivalent number of hours the $25,000 guy did charitable work for.

bill gates and warren buffet will be giving away most of their wealth before they die, not leaving too much to their children (just a few millions--out of the billions).  that's just an example of the mindset of american elites.  without that kind of culture among them, giving that much money away would not be so commonplace.

if you were to ask me the bolded question, and i were to give you a short answer, then i'd say, yes.

Final-Fan said: Greer said: Final Fan, and others. What does any of this have to do with Bush?? I thought we were talking about the tax code. and Final Fan, The 22% isn't a tax that is paid to the government, it is a cost incured by businesses to prepare their tax statements. Think of the army of accountants, and the man hours needed for lets say Best Buy to prepare their taxes, and if they are audited, that expense goes even higher. The arguement here is that if Corporations don't have to prepare their taxes, then they can cut out those additional costs, which are estimated to be at 22%. So, with this plan, companies can cut costs by about 22%, and that won't effect the governments tax income. Then, the cost goes up 23% for consumer taxes. Therefore the cost to consumers stays the same, and the government income stays the same. Where the savings comes in is in the form of all the saved man hours needed to prepare overly complicated tax statements. Don't you see how that is a good thing, it basically would give more money to everyone, because it gets rid of wasted effort in preparing taxes. Also, Huckabee said he didn't know how old the world is because the days in the Bible during creation could have been of any length of time. It was 7 "God" days, which could be a billion years a piece for all he knows. So, get your facts right before you go blasting someone and their beliefs. This thread has touched on a couple other subjects but always returned to the issue at hand. I've made small comments on those (which Eomund actually brought up in the first place by the way). [edit: posted this before I saw that Greer was leaving the thread. Please pretend that the following is directed at Eomund.] Ah, so [edit: are you] saying that people are calling "cost of compliance" a "hidden tax"[?] First of all, I would have to see the evidence that it actually amounts to 22%, and to know what precisely it is 22% of, and especially see whether the 22% of (whatever) is equal to 23% of (the tax-inclusive price of all new retail sales in the U.S.*) AKA 30% of all new retail sales in the U.S.* Then I would like to know how much the cost of compliance for the FairTax will be, and if you say "Zero" I will LOL. Don't forget the cost of administering the prebate system as well. *Including, as I recall, houses; rent; mortgages and other debt/interest payments; medical bills; gas; and all sorts of interesting things.

 The 22% is the average amount of embedded taxes in every item we buy already. Let me explain this 22% as I understand it. 

This 22% is an average of the taxes embedded in any item we buy today. Here is the link with the actual embedded taxes in each type of item. http://books.google.com/books?id=nj2A8v9swMwC&pg=PA53&lpg=PA53&dq=dr+dale+jorgenson+tax+costs+study&source=web&ots=r-vGMsiwWT&sig=et3E1W4SO41ROwCT3LHfFVgdX-Y#PPA54,M1

The embedded 22% I have been mentioning is the accumulated cost the we pay for the taxes down the line. Lets look at this example:

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

I buy a loaf of bread. There are a lot of people who are involved in getting that loaf of bread to your table, and every one of them has a tax liability attached to his or her particular place in the bread and economic food chain. When you buy that loaf of bread, you're paying a portion of all the bills, including tax bills, of every person or business entity that had anything to do with that bread, from before the wheat was planted up until the loaf of bread ends up in the plastic bag in the back seat of your minivan.

Here's just a partial list: First comes the seed producer, followed by the farmer who buys the seed to plant wheat. The seed producer is a taxpayer, and those taxes are reflected in the price he charges for seed. The farmer also buys things like fertilizer, irrigation equipment, fuel for his tractors, and labor. All bought from tax-paying businesspeople. You also have the tricking company that gets the raw materials to the processors. The processors are in this to make money, as are the bakery, the food distributor, and the grocery store. Taxpayers all. Then there's the company that made the packaging materials for your bread, and the farmer who grew the little sesame seeds you see on the crust. And don't forget the company that makes that little plastic gizmo thats supposed to reseal the bag--you know, the little plastic thing that we all throw away the first time we grab a slice. Woever made the plastic thingie pays taxes... and passes the cost off to the bakery... which passes the cost off to you.

...[Another paragraph about the chain of supply]...

... Every one of those entities has income taxes and payroll taxes and accountants and attorneys to avoid the taxes. Okay, so not all of these costs fall into the tax category--but some do. We bring them up to demonstrate that all of these elements make up a part of the cost of the cuonsumer goods we buy from these corporations and individuals, and they're all eventually paid by the end consumer. We call these costs embedded taxes.

Okay... so what's the tab? When you bought that loaf of bread, just how much of the price represented the total combined tax costs of every person or business entity that worked to put that loaf on the grocery store shelf?

An extensive study of tax costs was completed a few years ago by Dr. Dale Jorgenson, then chairman of the Harvard Economics Department. On average, Jorgenson concluded, 22 percent of the price paid for the consumer prodcuct represent embedded taxes. That means that for every dollaryou spend on a loaf of bread, twenty-two cents unds up being passed on the government somewhere along the line in the form of taxes.

---From The FairTax Book, pg. 52-54

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

There are taxes on my paycheck that are covered by my employer that I won't ever see on any check stub ever. There are compliance costs when my company send our receipts and and income reports to our accountant. Now when you take the corporate income, payroll, Social Security matching, and Medicare taxes out that is the 22% mentioned above.

When you do that you replace them with the FairTax @ 23%. Thus prices stay roughly the same.

Then when you reduce our tax compliance costs to a fraction of what they currently are, my company has an easier time making a profit since a big expense is taken out of our budget. American businesses, individuals, and non-profit organizations spent 6 billion hours and $265 billion to comply with the tax code in 2005.  That is an enormous cost just to comply with the current system. This is simply madness. 

"The Tax Foundation has categorized three separate types of tax compliance costs:

1) Wealthy individuals will spend tens of billions of dollars a year in tax planning. Among these "wealthy individuals" would be many people--your neighbor, for instance--who may not live a life of wealth and glamour, but who have holdings they's like to protect from taxation. It's not unusual for a farmer, for instanc, to spend tens of thousands of dollas each year with tax planners so that his heirs will be able to keep the property safe from the death tax and continue to farm after he dies. 

2) Both individuals and businesses spend countless dollars each year on tax seminars and educational forums, tax record keeping, and the preparation and filing of forms and returns.

3) Tax audits and litigation over tax returns are a deadly drain on the economy as a whole.

Of these three types of tax compliance costs, only the second is included in the Tax Foundation's $265 billion tax compliance cost estimate." -- more from the FairTax Book, page 45.

 The cost of compliance with the FairTax will barely be more than the current sales tax each business currently collects and passes on the the state each month. The cost on each individual will be ZERO every year. The cost of the Prebate distribution is something I do not know, but I would wager that it would not cost as much as the current IRS budget of over $10 billion. 

Andir said: Final-Fan said: This thread has touched on a couple other subjects but always returned to the issue at hand. I've made small comments on those (which Eomund actually brought up in the first place by the way). [edit:  posted this before I saw that Greer was leaving the thread.  Please pretend that the following is directed at Eomund.] Ah, so [edit: are you] saying that people are calling "cost of compliance" a "hidden tax"[?]  First of all, I would have to see the evidence that it actually amounts to 22%, and to know what precisely it is 22% of, and especially see whether the 22% of (whatever) is equal to 23% of (the tax-inclusive price of all new retail sales in the U.S.*) AKA 30% of all new retail sales in the U.S.* Then I would like to know how much the cost of compliance for the FairTax will be, and if you say "Zero" I will LOL. Don't forget the cost of administering the prebate system as well. *Including, as I recall, houses; rent; mortgages and other debt/interest payments; medical bills; gas; and all sorts of interesting things. I already posted one source for this 22% number: "In 2005 individuals, businesses and non-profits will spend an estimated 6 billion hours complying with the federal income tax code, with an estimated compliance cost of over $265.1 billion. This amounts to imposing a 22-cent tax compliance surcharge for every dollar the income tax system collects. Projections show that by 2015 the compliance cost will grow to $482.7 billion." - www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr138.pdf That $482.7 billion split between the 300,000,000 people in the US would amount to $1625 per person.  Of course, businesses, accountants and taxlawyers make up a huge chunk of this. I have a feeling that with everyone one of your posts you will never be happy until someone creates a 300,000,000 page document detailing how much every person in America will be saving and or spending with the new tax vs the old.  Even then, you will still be unhappy as it will probably come from someone who is pro "Fair Tax".  I've obtained one piece of information from this thread.  You will never be happy with any explaination, and will do no leg work on your own to find answers to the questions you have.  You want to be spoon fed a number that you think is good and only then you will be happy.

Yes, thank you for the reminder is on what the 22% figure is. I kinda thought someone had mentioned that, but I had to leave work and forgot to check it when I got home. For the moment I will assume the number quoted is true, though I reserve the right to investigate this number further. That is 22% of the INCOME TAX revenues of the U.S. So [edit: your assertion] that the FairTax, which is supposed to be a revenue-neutral replacement for the income tax (or a revenue-neutral replacement for all current taxes?) is actually equal to 22% of the income tax revenue is a logical/mathematical contradiction. If X is equal to Y, then X cannot also equal 22% of Y. (That is, if X and Y are nonzero, which taxes are.) As for the rest, claiming that no amount of evidence will satisfy me seems to be a very convenient reason for declining to provide any evidence at all.

[edit: accidentally deleted, this is reconstituted] 'Ah, thank you for that explanation Eomund. In that case, let me restate an earlier post of mine which may have been missed due to the large volume and size of posts in this thread:'

Final-Fan said: Andir said: Final-Fan said: This thread has touched on a couple other subjects but always returned to the issue at hand. I've made small comments on those (which Eomund actually brought up in the first place by the way). [edit: posted this before I saw that Greer was leaving the thread. Please pretend that the following is directed at Eomund.] Ah, so [edit: are you] saying that people are calling "cost of compliance" a "hidden tax"[?] First of all, I would have to see the evidence that it actually amounts to 22%, and to know what precisely it is 22% of, and especially see whether the 22% of (whatever) is equal to 23% of (the tax-inclusive price of all new retail sales in the U.S.*) AKA 30% of all new retail sales in the U.S.* Then I would like to know how much the cost of compliance for the FairTax will be, and if you say "Zero" I will LOL. Don't forget the cost of administering the prebate system as well. *Including, as I recall, houses; rent; mortgages and other debt/interest payments; medical bills; gas; and all sorts of interesting things. I already posted one source for this 22% number: "In 2005 individuals, businesses and non-profits will spend an estimated 6 billion hours complying with the federal income tax code, with an estimated compliance cost of over $265.1 billion. This amounts to imposing a 22-cent tax compliance surcharge for every dollar the income tax system collects. Projections show that by 2015 the compliance cost will grow to $482.7 billion." - www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr138.pdf That $482.7 billion split between the 300,000,000 people in the US would amount to $1625 per person. Of course, businesses, accountants and taxlawyers make up a huge chunk of this. I have a feeling that with everyone one of your posts you will never be happy until someone creates a 300,000,000 page document detailing how much every person in America will be saving and or spending with the new tax vs the old. Even then, you will still be unhappy as it will probably come from someone who is pro "Fair Tax". I've obtained one piece of information from this thread. You will never be happy with any explaination, and will do no leg work on your own to find answers to the questions you have. You want to be spoon fed a number that you think is good and only then you will be happy. Yes, thank you for the reminder is on what the 22% figure is. I kinda thought someone had mentioned that, but I had to leave work and forgot to check it when I got home. For the moment I will assume the number quoted is true, though I reserve the right to investigate this number further. That is 22% of the INCOME TAX revenues of the U.S. So Eomund's assertion (or rather the statement I ask Eomund if he was trying to say) that the FairTax, which is supposed to be a revenue-neutral replacement for the income tax (or a revenue-neutral replacement for all current taxes?) is actually equal to 22% of the income tax revenue is a logical/mathematical contradiction. If X is equal to Y, then X cannot also equal 22% of Y. (That is, if X and Y are nonzero, which taxes are.) As for the rest, claiming that no amount of evidence will satisfy me seems to be a very convenient reason for declining to provide any evidence at all.

 WHAT? I never said that the FairTax will only equal 22% of income taxes. 

The 22% of the embedded taxes are business taxes we pay for every item. This is not including income taxes at all.  The FairTax rate of 23% will effectively replace all income taxes and corporate taxes. The confusion I believe you are having is when you rip out the corporate taxes you have been thinking that I am including the taxes on the paystub of every paycheck of every employee. This is simply not the case. The price of goods needs to be related to the 22% embedded current tax VS. the 23% FairTax, and that is all that comparison is good for. 

What the 23% FairTax collects will be equal to the entire current tax system.

Does the FairTax rate need to be much higher to be revenue neutral?

The proper tax rate has been carefully worked out; 23 percent does the job of: (1) raising the same amount of federal funds as are raised by the current system, (2) paying the universal rebate, and (3) paying the collection fees to retailers and state governments. Unlike some other proposals, this rate has been independently confirmed by several different, nonpartisan institutions across the country. Detailed calculations are available from FairTax.org.

(source: http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_faq_answers#6)

Again I understand this is from American's for Fair Taxation, but just accept it for now.

Eomund said: Final-Fan said: Andir said: Final-Fan said: WHAT? I never said that the FairTax will only equal 22% of income taxes.  The 22% of the embedded taxes are business taxes we pay for every item. This is not including income taxes at all.  The FairTax rate of 23% will effectively replace all income taxes and corporate taxes. The confusion I believe you are having is when you rip out the corporate taxes you have been thinking that I am including the taxes on the paystub of every paycheck of every employee. This is simply not the case. The price of goods needs to be related to the 22% embedded current tax VS. the 23% FairTax, and that is all that comparison is good for.  What the 23% FairTax collects will be equal to the entire current tax system. Does the FairTax rate need to be much higher to be revenue neutral? The proper tax rate has been carefully worked out; 23 percent does the job of: (1) raising the same amount of federal funds as are raised by the current system, (2) paying the universal rebate, and (3) paying the collection fees to retailers and state governments. Unlike some other proposals, this rate has been independently confirmed by several different, nonpartisan institutions across the country. Detailed calculations are available from FairTax.org. (source: http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_faq_answers#6) Again I understand this is from American's for Fair Taxation, but just accept it for now.

Final-Fan said: Eomund said: Final-Fan said: Andir said: Final-Fan said: WHAT? I never said that the FairTax will only equal 22% of income taxes. The 22% of the embedded taxes are business taxes we pay for every item. This is not including income taxes at all. The FairTax rate of 23% will effectively replace all income taxes and corporate taxes. The confusion I believe you are having is when you rip out the corporate taxes you have been thinking that I am including the taxes on the paystub of every paycheck of every employee. This is simply not the case. The price of goods needs to be related to the 22% embedded current tax VS. the 23% FairTax, and that is all that comparison is good for. What the 23% FairTax collects will be equal to the entire current tax system. Does the FairTax rate need to be much higher to be revenue neutral? The proper tax rate has been carefully worked out; 23 percent does the job of: (1) raising the same amount of federal funds as are raised by the current system, (2) paying the universal rebate, and (3) paying the collection fees to retailers and state governments. Unlike some other proposals, this rate has been independently confirmed by several different, nonpartisan institutions across the country. Detailed calculations are available from FairTax.org. (source: http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_faq_answers#6) Again I understand this is from American's for Fair Taxation, but just accept it for now. "WHAT? I never said that the FairTax will only equal 22% of income taxes." You are correct of course, other people were putting words in your mouth and I have already edited to make this more clear after I saw your last explanation. What I am asking now is whether this (earlier) statement: Look, even SUPPOSING that there is a 22% "hidden tax" ON TOP OF the income tax etc., in that case how can you expect to replace it all with a 23% flat sales tax and come out with the government making the same amount of money? 22% tax + big income tax =/= 23% tax Except if by magic. also reflects a misunderstanding of what you are saying.

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

This 22% hidden tax, as you correctly called it, is indeed on top of the income taxes. The 22% is embedded in the price of each item we buy. So we pay those taxes when we buy anything really. 

The FairTax would replace our current tax code lock, stock, and barrel. It has been researched and found that the 23% covers the revenue-neutral amount of tax, PLUS the Prebate, PLUS the bonus granted to the tax-collectors for their trouble (businesses and State governments). There is MORE money spent than earned through legitimate income sources. This extra taxbase will help cover the amount of tax being replaced. 

I retract my statement Final-Fan. I see my impressions were wrong. It just seemed that so many of your questions were very detail oriented. I see it was probably more out of confusion that this thread seems to have a lot. ;)

Andir said: I retract my statement Final-Fan. I see my impressions were wrong. It just seemed that so many of your questions were very detail oriented. I see it was probably more out of confusion that this thread seems to have a lot. ;)