. . . So I will.



The Fair tax was a central piece of the platforms of several candidates this year. These included Republicans Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, and DINO candidate Mike Gravel.

http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.html

My opinion on the fair tax:

Like most sales taxes, it is ultimately regressive in nature. While there is evidence to suggest that the national economy would grow under such a system, there is little reason to believe that this growth would be much different from the uneven skewed-toward-the-top growth that occurs already. Many of the calculations made by fair-taxers- including citing 23% as their proposed rate when they really mean 30%, and the slight of hand many use to assert that prices would go down- are based on questionable logic.

What Fair-taxers seem to spend very little time talking about is what would happen to popular social programs in the United States; Social Security and Medicare come to mind. Because the Fair Tax plans feature a pre-bate and a promise of revenue neutrality, the two plans would likely have to be significantly scaled back or eliminated all-together.

Then there is always the issue of people who suffer from catastrophic events in their lives; an injury that stops someone from working, a death in the family of the income earner of the household, etc. The Fair Tax doesn't seem to take into account for these people, and the likelihood would be that their pre-bate would likely go down as their earnings go down.

I believe that this is ultimately an intrinsic part of the fair tax plan; dismantling of the social contract.

I'm writing in a hurry, but hopefully this will get the topic started.

I'm off to work.

The "fair" or "flat rate" tax is a fallicy. You've presented some problems and some areas where they are no longer flat.

The fact of the matter is that the tax code is also used to encourage and/or discourage certain behaviors and economic activities.

There's one quite simple problem with the "fair" tax. It's not a progressive tax.

IMHO, any non-progressive tax, that doesn't tax people according to their ability to pay, and doesn't tax capital more heavily than labor, isn't "fair".

I'd like our income tax to tax income, rather than lifestyle.

Good god why do some people think conservatives answers? They have created the current economic meltdown.

The progressive tax system we have now is much more fair than a flat tax. The only problem with our tax code as it stands right now is that it favors the wealthy by only taxing the first $90k. If you want to improve the tax code:

1) do away with any and all loopholes that allow American companies to move their operations/mailing addresses outside of the US while still claiming to be an American company

2) begin taxing every American's income the same -- don't have a cut off of the first $90k.

3) do not allow a flat rate for corporate taxes, tax their profits in the same way as an individual's. The Big Corps love to claim that way back when, some Supreme Court Justice ruled that corporations were entitled to individual rights . . . well, tax them like individuals and not like businesses.

And, that's about all I can think of, right now . . . just the big ideas, at least.

cut off at $90,000, dont know what you mean...

Fair - if nut jobs call it fair ... then you know it is "double-speak" = unfair-er ...
and has the same net effect of flat tax
- to lower taxes on the top and effectively increase them on middle and lower calss incomes.
Every suggestion from the right-moon-bats seems to favor the top income earners.





All - Obscuration :
Reverse the Bush tax cuts for the upper income earners [ increase them proportional to wealth ] ....
1 1/2 % pay 40% of taxes - and control 98% of the wealth - business, real estate, etc.
why are they not paying 98% - Fair share .... fair tax ....

.... enforce tax collection on businesses [ eliminate right offs, that neither enhance industries nor create jobs - in America].

http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.html

The current use by neocons of this doublespeak--euphemisms, oxymorons, outright nonsense like "fair tax" was copied, IMHO from none other than Vladimir Lenin...he invented the method to avoid Tsarist censors and to make a pig's ear look like a silk purse. This language bastardization was dubbed "Leninist Aesopian Language."

Karl Rove has become a master student of the use of this crap.

I remember the flat tax when Forbes was running. It seemed like everyone was falling all over themselves assuring different interests they weren't going to lose whatever advantage they had. Like mortgage interest deductions and deductions for children.
Since the government is not going to operate on less, for everyone that gets a break, someone else will end up paying more.
Anyone remember Michael Kinsley on Crossfire with his honest Republican test? Republicans were screaming for budget cuts when Clinton was in office. He would always ask them what programs or projects in their state they would recommend cutting.
Not a chance! I definately remember both senators Phil Graham from Texas and Alfonse DeMato from NY that couldn't cut anything from their states.
The way the system works now, these guys get elected by bringing home the pork. Any idea that you will cut taxes and the government will get by on less revenue is not gonna happen.

The income tax was never intended for capitalist societies. When capitalist societies adopt it, they abuse it without fail.

It is great for building infrastructure and all that groovy stuff, but it is also an efficient means of marshaling resources for war. It was first tried in the United States during the Civil War and was later struck down as unconstitutional.

When the United States embarked on the path to empire, it needed to create an income tax.

Any serious discussion of an alternative to the income tax must also include a discussion concerning the future of the empire.