Fair Tax is NOT FAIR!

from JoeUser Forums


Last night several candidates talked about the so called “Fair Tax”. That is a proposal to replace Federal Income, Medicare and Social Security taxes with a sales tax up to 30%. It was touted as FAIR which is a lie pure and simple. This is another Conservative plan to further lower the taxes on the wealthy.

Let’s take a look at just what a 30% sales tax would do.

The wealthy taxpayers only spend a portion of their income. Any income that they did not spend would escape this tax. A person with an annual income of $500,000 who spent $250,000 would pay taxes only on the $250,000 and would have an effective tax rate of 15%. A person with an income of $50,000 who most likely spends all of their income would have an effective tax rate of 30%.

A person with a $500,000 annual income pays $14,500 in Medicare taxes; $6,500 in Social Security Taxes and about $125,000 in income taxes for a total of $146,000. If they spent $250,000 of their $500,000 income under the Fair Tax they would pay $75,000 in tax (30% of $250,000). Their taxes would be cut in half!

A person making $50,000 pays $1,450 in Medicare; $3,200 in Social Security and $3,000 in income taxes for a total of $7,650. Under the Fail Tax they would pay $15,000 (30% of $50,000) Their taxes would be doubled!

In addition, how the low and middle income tax payers would pay this increased tax is a mystery!

YES this a FAIR Tax for ONLY the WEALTHY!
politics
46,173 views 88 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top

There are 6 strings on that guitar Gene, don't get seduced by the sound of just one.

Leave it to you to decide that everyone being treated equal isn't fair.

Why don't we just take what you call "the rich" and have them flogged every second Tuesday of the week, just to make sure they understand suffering?

I'm not a supporter of anything dubbed "Fair" because I'm smart enough to realize that there isn't such thing.  However, I know something that isn't "fair" and that is laws that demand more from some than from others, for completely arbitrary and meaningless reasons.

But that seems to be the rule you live by.

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Their taxes would be cut in half!


And?  I never seen anyone so happy to tax other people.

Maybe now you should focus on how we will pay for all the democrats social programs.
Multiplicity - Control multiple PCs using one keyboard and mouse
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
What you overlook, Gene, is that there is a segment of our wealthy who can afford to live off of their assets. They could live quite comfortably without producing another cent of income.

What a national sales tax would do, is tax their CONSUMPTION. And before you say that a consumption tax is regressive, look at who is paying the most. A $10,000 plasma screen TV nets 100 times the revenue of a $100 CRT television set.

I'll concede that the "fair tax" isn't perfect, but neither is our current system. And at least Fair tax proponents are DISCUSSING the issue!
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: Island DogPosted: Thursday, November 29, 2007Their taxes would be cut in half!And? I never seen anyone so happy to tax other people.Maybe now you should focus on how we will pay for all the democrats social programs.


First, What I posted is correct. This plan will REDUCE the taxes on the upper income Americans and increase the taxes on the low and middle income Americans!

Second, I have said many times I do not support NEW spending programs until we have balanced the current budget AND begun paying down the National debt.

The ONLY way to balance the budget and begin paying down the debt is to cut spending and increase tax revenue from upper income tax payers. We do need to simplify the tax code which will mean getting rid of tax breaks to special interest groups who for the most part are the wealthy taxpayers. Low and middle income taxpayers have access to only the basic deductions such as exemptions for the tax payers and their children, Real Estate taxes, chartable donations and interest on mortgages. The lower tax rates for dividend and capital gains do not help most middle income taxpayers.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Why don't we just take what you call "the rich" and have them flogged every second Tuesday of the week, just to make sure they understand suffering?


No just ask them too pay a little more from their wealth so we can pay for the programs that help the majority and enable us to keep the promises we have made to our retired workers!
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

Second, I have said many times I do not support NEW spending programs until we have balanced the current budget AND begun paying down the National debt.

But you do support spending more money on medical care for children, medical care for elderly and retired, and a host of other programs so you are being incredibly disingenuous and showing, yet again, what a bitter old coot you can be.

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
You aren't "asking" anything of them, you want it set up so they will be imprisoned for not "paying a little more".

What promise have we made to our retired workers? We never promised them health, wealth or that they could maintain their standard of living. We only promised them a stipend called "Social Security"... and that promise was always contingent on what was in the system when they retired.

Social Security has never been a guarantee, neither has Medicare... for that matter, being able to keep working until retirement age has never been guaranteed either.

Quit demanding the government make up the difference between what we hope for and what actually happens.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply | Edit | DeleteReply By: ParaTed2kPosted: Thursday, November 29, 2007You aren't "asking" anything of them, you want it set up so they will be imprisoned for not "paying a little more".What promise have we made to our retired workers? We never promised them health, wealth or that they could maintain their standard of living. We only promised them a stipend called "Social Security"... and that promise was always contingent on what was in the system when they retired. Social Security has never been a guarantee, neither has Medicare... for that matter, being able to keep working until retirement age has never been guaranteed either.Quit demanding the government make up the difference between what we hope for and what actually happens.


YOU are DEAD WRONG. There is a promise to honor BOTH Social Security and Medicare. Try and sell YOUR BS to the majority of the VOTERS. ANY Member of Congress that would not insure these two plans are fully paid will be gone!!!! Today a person making $50,000 pays about 6.25% in Social Security taxes. A person making $200,000 only pays a little over 3%. The rich get away with paying less and the middle income and poor pay more!

The "Fair Tax is the same BS plan!
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: terpfan1980Posted: Thursday, November 29, 2007Second, I have said many times I do not support NEW spending programs until we have balanced the current budget AND begun paying down the National debt.But you do support spending more money on medical care for children, medical care for elderly and retired, and a host of other programs so you are being incredibly disingenuous and showing, yet again, what a bitter old coot you can be.




That was paid for with a tax on Cigarettes.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Who pays the tax on Cigarettes? Rich people?
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Also, you seem to live in a world where the rich actually pay taxes. Here's a big tip for you - the rich don't pay ANY taxes. They get the poor people to pay their taxes for them, by firing them to save money and make up what they would pay in taxes. So raising taxes on the rich is just making the poor pay. Because rich people aren't stupid. They will find a way to keep their money.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
By the way, ColGene,

While I disagree with you on this position, I appreciate you posting this particular topic for discussion. It's a good topic for discussion, and I'd like to see you address more meaty issues like this. It's a refreshing change from your usual fare.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
First, What I posted is correct. This plan will REDUCE the taxes on the upper income Americans and increase the taxes on the low and middle income Americans!


Sure gene.


Second, I have said many times I do not support NEW spending programs until we have balanced the current budget AND begun paying down the National debt.


You are really a hypocrite gene.  You were the one complaining about s-chip, and you support democrats who all want more social programs.  I think you just like complaining.

The ONLY way to balance the budget and begin paying down the debt is to cut spending and increase tax revenue from upper income tax payers.


It's not the only way, and you have been shown this countless times.  Just because you choose to ignore it isn't my problem.


No just ask them too pay a little more from their wealth so we can pay for the programs that help the majority and enable us to keep the promises we have made to our retired workers!


Oh what BS!  Why does everyone need "help"?  All you want gene is for successful Americans to pay for lazy people, plain and simple. 

The rich get away with paying less and the middle income and poor pay more!


The "rich", that you have such a jealousy for, have the majority of tax burden in this country.

Socialism doesn't work gene, understand that.

Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: JythierPosted: Thursday, November 29, 2007Who pays the tax on Cigarettes? Rich people?


Who ever is dumb enough to smoke Ricn and Poor like.

Reply By: JythierPosted: Thursday, November 29, 2007Also, you seem to live in a world where the rich actually pay taxes. Here's a big tip for you - the rich don't pay ANY taxes. They get the poor people to pay their taxes for them, by firing them to save money and make up what they would pay in taxes. So raising taxes on the rich is just making the poor pay. Because rich people aren't stupid. They will find a way to keep their money.


That is why we need to remove all the special interest provisions, increase the threshold where the AMT takes effect to a point where it does not impact the middle income tax payers and make it impossible for the wealthy to avoid paying taxes. There are also many small business owners that cheat on their taxes by charging personal items and work to their company. They keep cash payments and do not report the income and then claim the Acc Rec. is open and get a second bite by deducting it from any revenue they do report. That is why Bush reducing the number of IRS agents was not a smart move! At a time when we are running a deficit we should insure that as many as possible are paying their taxes.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
You are really a hypocrite gene. You were the one complaining about s-chip, and you support democrats who all want more social programs. I think you just like complaining.


That was paid for by a tax on cigaretts
It's not the only way, and you have been shown this countless times. Just because you choose to ignore it isn't my problem.




You are wrong and I have shown you that. There is not enough in the discretionary section of the budget to balance the budget and begin paying down the National Debt!
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
The "rich", that you have such a jealousy for, have the majority of tax burden in this country.Socialism doesn't work gene, understand that.


We did NOT have Socialism during the 1990's when the wealthy paid a little more in taxes! That is a worn out excuse the wealthy use to perpetuate their GREED!
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

We did NOT have Socialism during the 1990's when the wealthy paid a little more in taxes! That is a worn out excuse the wealthy use to perpetuate their GREED!




And just when I was giving you credit.

When I remember that you consider ME one of the rich, I have to laugh at this!
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Gid, how can he consider you rich, and then consider you poor enough to need government assistance?

That is why we need to remove all the special interest provisions, increase the threshold where the AMT takes effect to a point where it does not impact the middle income tax payers and make it impossible for the wealthy to avoid paying taxes. There are also many small business owners that cheat on their taxes by charging personal items and work to their company. They keep cash payments and do not report the income and then claim the Acc Rec. is open and get a second bite by deducting it from any revenue they do report. That is why Bush reducing the number of IRS agents was not a smart move! At a time when we are running a deficit we should insure that as many as possible are paying their taxes.


You miss the point. They pay taxes, on paper, but really, that money is coming out of the poor's pockets, not theirs. See, they will, instead of paying a worker, not pay their workers and pay their taxes with it. You will see lower wage jobs, jobs gone, more unemployment, and less overall taxable income in the economy - enough to make up the difference between the pre-increase tax revenue and the post-increase tax revenue.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: Gideon MacLeishPosted: Thursday, November 29, 2007We did NOT have Socialism during the 1990's when the wealthy paid a little more in taxes! That is a worn out excuse the wealthy use to perpetuate their GREED! And just when I was giving you credit.When I remember that you consider ME one of the rich, I have to laugh at this!


I do not know what you wealth is and it makes no difference. What I have said is correct. We did not have anything like Socialism during the 1990's in the U.S. when the upper income groups paid a little more in taxes. The wealthy should never have been given a tax cut because the SURPLUS that was used by Bush to justify the tax cuts DID NOT EXIST. Just as O'Neil and Greenspan said the tax cuts should have been tied to the available surplus. NO Surplus NO tax Cuts! Since there was no Surplus we should collect all the tax cuts since 2001 the wealthy received
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
The wealthy should never have been given a tax cut because the SURPLUS that was used by Bush to justify the tax cuts DID NOT EXIST.


Thanks for pointing out another Clinton lie. Because Clinton most certainly led us to believe there was a surplus.

Gid, how can he consider you rich, and then consider you poor enough to need government assistance?


I have no idea. Out one side of his mouth, he basically says I should be dead, as I cannot live on what I am making. Out the other side, he says I am wealthy. I give up trying to figure out which I am.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
You are wrong and I have shown you that.


LOL.  Keep believing that gene.


We did NOT have Socialism during the 1990's when the wealthy paid a little more in taxes! That is a worn out excuse the wealthy use to perpetuate their GREED!


A "little more in taxes" is not going to solve anything gene, something else that has been shown to you.  You are so obsessed with taxing rich people you don't see anything else. 

You want income redistribution so some Americans have to pay for the laziness and irresponsibility of others.  America has turned into a nanny state way too much already, we don't need people like you making the problem worse.


Since there was no Surplus we should collect all the tax cuts since 2001 the wealthy received



HAHAHAHAHAH!

Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: Gideon MacLeishPosted: Thursday, November 29, 2007The wealthy should never have been given a tax cut because the SURPLUS that was used by Bush to justify the tax cuts DID NOT EXIST. Thanks for pointing out another Clinton lie. Because Clinton most certainly led us to believe there was a surplus.


That is CRAP. Bush was the one that said there was a $5.7 Trillion dollar Surplus and it was Bush that insisted on three tax cuts for which there was NO justification or money to pay for them! CLINTON had NOTHING to do with the Bush Tax Cuts! When Clinton left office we had a Balanced Budget which Bush destroyed the very first year he was in office and EVERY year thereafter!

Even if we had the Surplus Bush claimed we also had a National Debt of $5.8 Trillion dollar at the beginning of 2001 so even if the Surplus Bush claimed were real we should have used it to pay down the debt before granting tax cuts!
A "little more in taxes" is not going to solve anything gene, something else that has been shown to you. You are so obsessed with taxing rich people you don't see anything else.


Yes it will reduce the deficit!
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
That is CRAP.


Wow. SO even when I'm nice to you, you're going to treat me like I'm an ignorant child. Nice. Guess I learned MY lesson!

Here's a clue for you, Col. Just because we disagree doesn't automatically mean that I'm wrong any more than it automatically means that you're wrong. I'd love to actually have an intelligent discussion on these issues, but it's impossible as long as you keep calling my point of view "crap!"
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: Gideon MacLeishPosted: Thursday, November 29, 2007
That is CRAP.
Wow. SO even when I'm nice to you, you're going to treat me like I'm an ignorant child. Nice. Guess I learned MY lesson!


What you said is CRAP! Clinton had NOTHING to do with the Bush tax CUTS!
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
You also fail to acknowledge there was no Surplus which was the justification Bush used for the tax cuts! HOW can you give something back when there is NOTHING to give back?