The Fair Tax

I think he was talking about my crazy plan where each person has to pay in $X for their equal percent of the tax burden. ;)

For children, the parents are responsible for paying their part of the taxes. If they can't afford it, perhaps they shouldn't have had four children to begin with.

As someone who doesn't have children, I'm tired for paying to take care of other people's children because they can't keep their pants up and don't know how to use a condom. If you have a child, you'd better be able to take care of it because if I wanted to take care of some children, I'd have my own. At least then I could make 'em mow the yard and do the dishes...
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Umm... you're the one who turned it into an issue of morality.

"2) It is their moral obligation to repay the society"

You talk about shifting the tax burden. I'm more interested in making the tax burden less on everyone. Let's cut government spending. A lot.

Additionally, and I know there's no way in heck this would ever pass, but let's tax people in one fair, simple way. Let's put together a budget for the government for next year. Now, take the sum of all that, divide it by the number of people in the US and each person (Man, woman, child of any age) pays $X. If you can't afford to pay your share, then you get to work it off doing a government job (cleaning a park or something) at a standard rate of pay - which will be garnished until you've paid your taxes for the year.

If the $X per person is too much, then the government needs to cut back spending. If the government can't cut back spending, then we need to elect politicians who know how to run a business within a reasonable budget.[/QUOTE]

That's an awful idea.
 
Every Citizen's vote counts equally in this country. So why should one citizen have to pay more than another citizen to support it?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Every Citizen's vote counts equally in this country. So why should one citizen have to pay more than another citizen to support it?[/quote]

Well, even with the fair tax, the Rich will be paying more to support it, though The system that provides this support will be set up fairly for everyone. I get what you are saying and I agree one hundred percent.
 
The thing I do like about the FairTax (and I do like the FairTax) is that we (as Americans) can actually save and invest our money and not be punished for doing so.

I think this is one of the things that really hurts our economy as a whole. I know everyone is all about milking the rich and letting them pay for everything, but all of these tax laws that tax savings and investments just end up making the evil rich people save and invest their money in other countries where they aren't punished. How about we get rid of the system that punishes savings and investments and actually encourage not only our own citizens into saving and investing in US industries, but let's get some of those rich people from other countries to invest in US, since they'll be able to do so without huge chuncks of their earnings being taken out to cover taxes...
 
not to mention all the companies that will be setting up home bases in the USA because of the tax laws. Check out the book, it really opens your eyes to how screwed up our current system is.

 
[quote name='UncleBob']I think he was talking about my crazy plan where each person has to pay in $X for their equal percent of the tax burden. ;)[/quote]

Correct. And to schuerm, I don't think too much is fair in the current system, totally agree with you there. It's a sickening spoils-based system.

[quote name='UncleBob']For children, the parents are responsible for paying their part of the taxes. If they can't afford it, perhaps they shouldn't have had four children to begin with.

As someone who doesn't have children, I'm tired for paying to take care of other people's children because they can't keep their pants up and don't know how to use a condom. If you have a child, you'd better be able to take care of it because if I wanted to take care of some children, I'd have my own. At least then I could make 'em mow the yard and do the dishes...[/QUOTE]

This is all fine and good, but not a realistic solution. I certainly understand animosity towards those who are irresponsible and expect the government to bail them out. I thought welfare reform was a fabulous idea from the beginning and think it has worked out very well. But come on, your plan is a pretty harsh on a heck of a lot of people, don't you think?
 
Yes and no. In a perfect world where government spending is about 80% less than it is now (an number I just pulled outta my butt, but probably around where it should be) and everyone actually wants to contribute their fair (i.e.: equal) share (and screw those who don't), I think my plan is perfect. ;)

However, I know it would never go over. I'd probably get through a plan for forced sterilization of welfare parents first... Who's for that one? :)
 
LINDER ANNOUNCES RECORD 60 CO-SPONSORS FOR FAIRTAX BILL

5/9/2007
May 8th, 2007 Washington, D.C. - Congressman John Linder (GA-07) announced today that his revolutionary tax reform legislation, the FairTax, achieved 60 co-sponsors, which is a record number for H.R. 25. “I am ecstatic, but I have to say, I am not terribly surprised. This has been the case all year. Grassroots support across the nation is motivating Members to call us up and ask for information on the FairTax, and when they read it they are always eager to put their name on the bill.”
Congressman Linder pointed out that the FairTax is the most highly co-sponsored piece of tax reform legislation in U.S. House of Representatives. In fact, the Flat Tax, which is the only other serious piece of tax reform legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives, falls far short of that number with only four.
“Again, I am just not surprised. In fact, this past Saturday I traveled to Macon, Georgia, to speak to another FairTax training session. They had around 50 people come out for several hours, on a Saturday, to learn how they can better educate others on the FairTax. That is real passion, and it is real traction, and I think that is what you see reflected in this incredible list of co-sponsors.”
Congressman Linder also expressed his appreciation to Representatives Darrell Issa (CA-49) and John Boozman (AR-03) for being the most recent cosponsors of H.R. 25, and for surpassing the bill’s highest number of co-sponsors in merely the first four months of the 110th Congress.
Click to expand...
From fairtax.org
 
[quote name='mykevermin']http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.00025:

Latest Major Action: 1/7/2003 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

So, in 4+ years, the only change has been the addition of 6 co-sponsors? Hold the presses, this is front page material! :rofl:[/quote]

You think something like tax reform is overnight work? This would take power AWAY from government and give it to the people, and you think this is going to happen quickly? The flat tax only has 4 co-sponsors.

Just go to the fairtax website and look at the letter from Hillary Clinton. It is full of misinformation. Half the idiots in Washington don't even take the time to understand how this would help the people of the USA. Or more likely the fact that this actually helps people doesn't really matter to them.
 
I didn't say it was overnight work; I was pointing out what you (and, I assume, Boortz' website) intentionally omitted: that the legislation has collected dust for over 4 years and done nothing in that timeframe except added 6 co-sponsors.

Which makes me wonder, and I don't have the time to look at this, but since this bill has sat through 3 sessions of the house, just how *many* of those co-sponsors are still holding office? ;)
 
This may seem like a dumb question, but what elements of the current tax system do people think is unfair? I agree, the system seems inherently broken and like everyone else, I think I pay too much and the payroll tax is basically a government mugging every month. However, ask yourself what proportion of the tax revenue should the top 50% in income and bottom 50% of income should be responsible for and look up what the actual percentage is and you may be surprised.

I don't think the revenue stream is the main problem. The problem is government spending which changing the tax system doesn't address. The government, in a sense being the largest corporation in the country is also going to be the most inefficent in its spending. Cut government spending, let all Americans keep more of their income and therefore giving individuals more personal economic responsibility. For example, phase out social security and give wage earners more of their money to invest or save as they see fit to prepare for their own retirement. Phase out Medicare and allow people use that money to select their own health care based on their individual needs. In the end, I think everyone, "rich" or "poor" would be a lot happier.
 
While I agree that government spending is the main issue that needs reformed, the problem with our current system of collecting taxes is that it is horrendous.

Pretty much everything you do is taxed - and at multiple steps during the process. Complying with the tax code is an expensive task for a lot of people and, as I said before, with a "FairTax"-type idea, you're encouraged to save and invest instead of automatically handing over 30% of your paycheck to Uncle Sam. Add to that all of the poeple who don't pay taxes due to the questionable sources of their income, at least this way they'll be paying back something into the system.
 
It's a confluence of things, I'm sure you know. The complexity of the tax system is often interpreted as being "unfair," and government spending is often seen as "unfair." Lastly, the proportion of income tax paid by those above the median is often considered "unfair." These messages often get mixed by those against the income tax.

Now, the only thing that I agree with is that government spending is out of control. A cursory glance at what the government takes in annually versus what it spends, and those trend lines from Nixon through today, add a lot of credence to the "big government" banter (though, outside of 4 years of Carter and 8 years of Clinton, the past 37 years have been all Republican).

What do we cut in government spending, though? Two areas where money can be cut, IMO, are in the military and corrections. By allowing privatization of those industries, we've created substantial problems, including (1) the vested interest of the capitalist class in perpetual war and punishment of our citizens, and (2) contrary to all those pro-privatization arguments, remarkable increases in what we spend in those two categories.

Of course, if you even think about proposing cuts in military spending or spending less on prisons, you've just effectively ended your political career.

I think many Americans are of the "have their cake and eat it too" variety. During the 2004 election, several polls showed that some of the most pressing issues for people included increased spending on education, increased spending on health care, and tax cuts. - I think we all want tax cuts, but aren't prepared for the ramifications of that. We can cut arts funding, we can cut bridges to nowhere, and we can cut TANF (completely!) and see unimpressive returns. If we eliminated TANF entirely, every household would have an additional $17/month (based on my own estimations from half a year ago), for one example.

EDIT: corrected "household" for "american." big difference there.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']

What do we cut in government spending, though? Two areas where money can be cut, IMO, are in the military and corrections. [/quote]

Ironically, these are two aspects I would NOT want to cut. In my mind, the government's main, and arguably only role, is to safeguard the lives and property of its citizens though I would imagine your view would be completely different. Such is the tragedy of democracy... (just kidding).
 
[quote name='dopa345']Ironically, these are two aspects I would NOT want to cut. In my mind, the government's main, and arguably only role, is to safeguard the lives and property of its citizens though I would imagine your view would be completely different. Such is the tragedy of democracy... (just kidding).[/QUOTE]

Of course my view is different, but not in a way that says "I disagree with safeguarding lives and property." ;)

I also think that the vast majority of Americans agree with not wanting to cut those two areas, making the incorrect guess that "cutting funding" = "cutting effectiveness." That's why I said "say goodbye to your political career if you dare make these suggestions." The closest we've come in over 3 decades is Bush's 2004 SOTU mention to offer tax breaks for businesses that hire ex-prisoners and additional resources for rehabilitation and training for soon-to-be-released offenders. I don't know what ever became of that proposal, though.

That's the sad irony - these are two areas where it would be easy to reduce the costs of operation and save taxpayers money, but they are also two areas where people seem cognitively opposed to cutting funding. Instead, they toy around with irrelevant hypotheticals like eliminating those welfare programs that will net them $17 a month per household, and send crime rates through the roof (thus increasing the costs of operating corrections). ;)

I see tax cuts hurting students the most; I'm covered via scholarships and assistantships, so I "don't feel it," but my first three years of graduate education (2002-2005) were marked by 3 consecutive 9.9% tuition hikes. This is due primarily to needing to compensate for the reduction in federal funds allocated to the state for education purposes. The Bush tax cuts, along with a conservative philosophy of taxation, helped create many schools (I'm not alone) that had a roughly 33% jump (after controlling for graded increases) in tuition over 3 years. That's absurd - it shifts the costs onto those people who are at their most financially vulnerable (those paying college tuition, families and students alike), and also, by raising the cost of tuition, makes a college education and even less attainable goal for underprivileged and poor children, no matter how much effort they put into their schooling.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']While I agree that government spending is the main issue that needs reformed, the problem with our current system of collecting taxes is that it is horrendous.

Pretty much everything you do is taxed - and at multiple steps during the process. Complying with the tax code is an expensive task for a lot of people and, as I said before, with a "FairTax"-type idea, you're encouraged to save and invest instead of automatically handing over 30% of your paycheck to Uncle Sam. Add to that all of the poeple who don't pay taxes due to the questionable sources of their income, at least this way they'll be paying back something into the system.[/quote]

It's not only the "unfair" aspect of it, it is also the complexity issue and cost of compliance issue. In the fair tax book there is an example (I can't give exact page or specifics since I don't have the book here), but it was saying something about getting a certain amount of accountants to do a tax return for a business. NONE of the tax returns came back the same way and NONE of them were correct. It is absurd when tax laws have become so complicated that you can't get correct information from accountants NOR can you get correct information from the IRS. In the book they quote some study where about 50% of the time you are getting incorrect information from the IRS when you call in for help (don't quote me on the 50% as I don't have the book here, but it is absurdly high)

The cost of compliance issue is a large one also.

In 2002 Individuals and Businesses spent 5.8 billion hours complying with the tax code, an effort that cost an estimated $194 Billion

That is just complying with the tax code, not including the money you actually are paying in taxes.
 
[quote name='schuerm26']In 2002 Individuals and Businesses spent 5.8 billion hours complying with the tax code, an effort that cost an estimated $194 Billion[/QUOTE]

That's roughly $33/hour - are they arguing that's what we pay others to do our taxes, money lost due to lost productivity, or both?

I doubt it's productivity; after all, we don't get a "tax holiday" or take a 20 hour week to get our taxes done. We all still put in a full 40+, of course. So explain this statistic to me in a meaningful way, because I don't quite get it.

Additionally, arguments about cost and complexity are countered by the AMT, making fairtax moot.
 
[quote name='mykevermin'] That's absurd - it shifts the costs onto those people who are at their most financially vulnerable (those paying college tuition, families and students alike), and also, by raising the cost of tuition, makes a college education and even less attainable goal for underprivileged and poor children, no matter how much effort they put into their schooling.[/QUOTE]

Which of course lowers the average income level, thus lowering tax revenues and increasing crime, which in turn increases the cost of corrections. It's a beautiful thing, isn't it?

On a side note, am I the only one who sees education as the silver bullet for most problems. I mean, if you looked at societal ills vs. income level, I'd put a good amount of money on there being an inverse relationship.

And shit, while we're at it, anyone have numbers that determine how much in overall tax revenue someone with a 4 year generates over their lifetime vs. someone with just a high school diploma? I have to imagine that it's a lot more than the cost of 4 years of tuition at your average college.
 
Which is why I wish politicians would get their heads out of the back side of the Teacher's Union and support school choice and private education vouchers.
 
It seems to me, in the same vein as myke and evanft's comments, a lot of these tax reforms vastly underestimate the complexities of life.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Which is why I wish politicians would get their heads out of the back side of the Teacher's Union and support school choice and private education vouchers.[/QUOTE]

Please. This deserves a topic of its own; neither Democratic "more funding" policies, nor Republican "close 'em down and send 'em to christian private schools" policies come close to alleviating the substantial cultural and community-level disadvantages faced by those in poverty.

When a third grade student is told that they're going to be suspended for a day for fighting, and their response is "gimmie ten days, I don't give a fuck!" to the *teacher*, we're dealing with something that demands our attention far more than schools. (this is but one example of what one friend has to deal with on a near-daily basis in a public school she teaches at).

The irony of the Republican school voucher system isn't that it's a bad idea, but it's half-baked. The notion of "mixed-income schools" (which is essentially what vouchers lead to) provides social stimulus to those living in poverty. When you're surrounded by drugs, crime, and unemployment, there's no incentive to go to school; after all, you don't know many people who have benefited from education, so why bother yourself? It's a dead end street! Providing a social environment that reinforces, to a small degree, that education can be a useful conduit towards a good standard of living, however, is something worth paying attention to. Just not by itself.

Why is it half-baked? Because the promotion of such a policy was imposed at the same time as Congressional Republicans, along with the Bush administration, have tried their damndest to completely cut off funding for Hope VI initiatives (which is essentially creating mixed-income communities by redistributing section 8 housing so it isn't clustered in one area). It's too counterintuitive to be irony, so it's more schadenfruede, IMO.
 
Why do you assume all private schools would have to be Christian or religious in any way?

Anywhoo, since we can't kick out the students who just don't want to be there, why don't we get those who *do* out of there and into a better classroom?

Additionally, the private sector does almost every thing better than the government (since they have to work harder, because when they fail, they don't get to make the taxpayers foot the bill). Would large-scale private schooling be any different?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Why do you assume all private schools would have to be Christian or religious in any way?[/quote]
Well are they not mostly religious now? You can't have a voucher to go a school that doesn't exist. I don't think myke was responding to what could possibly happen in a hypothetical future.

[quote name='UncleBob'] Anywhoo, since we can't kick out the students who just don't want to be there, why don't we get those who *do* out of there and into a better classroom?[/quote]
Isn't that kind of ignoring the real problem?

[quote name='UncleBob'] Additionally, the private sector does almost every thing better than the government (since they have to work harder, because when they fail, they don't get to make the taxpayers foot the bill). Would large-scale private schooling be any different?[/quote]
I don't see why they would necessarily do things better given the same funds.

EDIT: To expand on that, what I'm saying is that part of the reason why private schools work now is because they don't have to deal with the problems that public schools do. So to automatically say that in the same situation with the same funds they would do a better job is a leap I'm not prepared to make.
 
1) I am of the belief that if private school vouchers were passed, there would be more private schools. Simple supply and demand.

2) There are two "real problems". First, you have the kids who don't want to learn. Second, you have the kids who do want to learn, but get screwed because of the kids who don't want to learn, their disruptions and the time and attention that the school has to focus on them. Which one of those two groups do you think concerns me the most? I'm thinking "help those who help themselves."

3)Private schools have a proven track record of doing a better job educating children while spending *less* money per child.

Granted, this could change if large amounts of private schools get set up and start accepting a larger variety of childern.

But private schools have one major advantage over a government school. They can kick a child out for almost any (reasonable) reason. You want to be a trouble maker? Fine - go somewhere else and do it. We're here to learn.
 
Let's say the government set up Government owned Grocery stores. Now, in order to fund these stores, everyone has to pay taxes. In exchange for paying taxes, you get to go to the grocery store and get an alloted amount of food for "free".

Now, since the government is set up with this store, they don't have to worry about taxes as much. Also, stuff like paying employees and utility bills? Yeah, Mr Taxpayer will foot that bill. No worries about running a business here.

Meanwhile, if you want to go somewhere else to buy groceries - for whatever reason (better selection elsewhere, whatever) - you're going to deal with a private business who does have to worry about taxes, utilities, employee wages, etc., etc. And they don't get to make the taxpayer pay for it whenever they screw up. So, natually, the privately owned store isn't going to be giving away the food like the government owned store - they're going to have to charge. Quite a bit more.

Meanwhile, if you choose to shop at the privately owned store, you're still paying into the government owned store. No opting out here, every one pays in. So, if you want the better food, you end up paying twice.

Sound like a good deal? Let's switch that around a bit...

Let's say the government set up Government owned schools. Now, in order to fund these schools, everyone has to pay taxes. In exchange for paying taxes, you get to go to the school and get an educated for "free".

Now, since the government is set up with this school, they don't have to worry about taxes as much. Also, stuff like paying employees and utility bills? Yeah, Mr Taxpayer will foot that bill. No worries about running a business here.

Meanwhile, if you want to go somewhere else to get educated - for whatever reason (better education elsewhere, whatever) - you're going to deal with a private business who does have to worry about taxes, utilities, employee wages, etc., etc. And they don't get to make the taxpayer pay for it whenever they screw up. So, natually, the privately owned school isn't going to be giving away the education like the government owned school - they're going to have to charge. Quite a bit more.

Meanwhile, if you choose to get educated at the privately owned school, you're still paying into the government owned school. No opting out here, every one pays in. So, if you want the education, you end up paying twice.
 
Primarily because they wouldn't be *given* the same funds--they would have to *earn* them, and compete for customers.
Most of the problems public schools have to deal with are the thinking that throwing money at a school is automatically good, and that bureaucrats five levels above the classroom decide what and how to teach, instead of people in the school. Add to that tenure and the difficulty in many systems of getting someone fired, and the fact that there is very little external motivation for a teacher to work hard, and it's a wonder we have as many literate people as we do. Education is important, too important to be left to government bureaucrats."To stay out of poverty in America, it's necessary to do three simple things, social scientists have found: finish high school, don't have kids until you marry, and wait until you are at least 20 to marry. Do those three things, and the odds against your becoming impoverished are less than one in ten. Nearly 80 percent of everyone who fails to do those three things winds up poor."
http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_4_working_poor.html
Unfortunately, not many people have respect for education anymore, least of all those who need it most (who are currently in poverty situations). There are lots of kids who don't like or want education, in part because of the lack of positive effect they see from it, and because they don't get the support/reinforcement from their home. While I think the current public school system is overgrown and inefficient and is not the best method to educate our youth, I know there are some good teachers in the system, and virtually every one of them wants and needs reinforcement from the parents.
There are non-religious private schools, though most of them, admittedly, are either religious or disciplinary; however, even as an atheist I wouldn't necessarily mind that, depending on the level of religiousity in the school. I'm confident enough in my beliefs to not fear sending my child to a religious-based school, and I wouldn't necessarily mind him being exposed to other belief systems than mine, so that he can first, learn diverse viewpoints and second, make up his own mind what he believes. Now, I wouldn't send him to Sister Mary Catherine's School of the Holy Handwhacking Ruler, but I don't think they do that anymore (very much.)
 
[quote name='UncleBob']1) I am of the belief that if private school vouchers were passed, there would be more private schools. Simple supply and demand.[/QUOTE]

I think so too. If money were no object, I would definitely send my son to a private school. Plus there could be more diverse schools, instead of the virtually 'one size fits all' system now; artistic-based, science-focused, all boy/girl, freeform, very structured, etc.

[quote name='UncleBob']
But private schools have one major advantage over a government school. They can kick a child out for almost any (reasonable) reason. You want to be a trouble maker? Fine - go somewhere else and do it. We're here to learn.[/QUOTE]

This is true, but on the flipside, the school would have more motivation for helping that child to learn. Now if a kid isn't doing well in public school, who really cares? The teachers teach to the tests and the admins worry about their NCLB ratings. When my mom and dad taught, every year they got kids who shouldn't have been promoted, but were, either because nothing else could be done or they just wanted to move them along.
But with private schools, if the kid is doing poorly (and of course if the parents care about education), they can take their business elsewhere, so it's in the schools and the child's best interest to really work at helping that student.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']1) I am of the belief that if private school vouchers were passed, there would be more private schools. Simple supply and demand.[/quote]

Alright, I can go with that, but as of right now any vouchers would most likely be sending the kids to a religious school, so that's what myke was saying.

[quote name='UncleBob'] 2) There are two "real problems". First, you have the kids who don't want to learn. Second, you have the kids who do want to learn, but get screwed because of the kids who don't want to learn, their disruptions and the time and attention that the school has to focus on them. Which one of those two groups do you think concerns me the most? I'm thinking "help those who help themselves."[/quote]

That's true, but the kid that doesn't learn anything doesn't really need help s/he just needs to be left alone. I think the kids that are acting up could be dealt with better within the same public school setting. Public schools just don't really seem to care about those kids. They give them the worst teachers and just let them do whatever.

[quote name='UncleBob'] 3)Private schools have a proven track record of doing a better job educating children while spending *less* money per child.

Granted, this could change if large amounts of private schools get set up and start accepting a larger variety of childern.

But private schools have one major advantage over a government school. They can kick a child out for almost any (reasonable) reason. You want to be a trouble maker? Fine - go somewhere else and do it. We're here to learn.[/quote]

How is kicking the kid out a solution though? If you just kick out any kid that needs extra help for motivation/whatever, then that's doing damage to society.

Now if you propose that there could be another school for those kids and they wouldn't be kicked out into the street to cause trouble, then that's good (Although having the same system within a public school would also be good).

So my question with all of this is money. There are plenty of ways that people that have money can already help their kids outside of school if they're a problem in school and can put them in private school if they want. It's the people without money that benefit from the public education system. So does your private school system work based on tuition paid by the parents like it does now or on tax-supported vouchers that just allow people to pick between different schools?
 
[quote name='SpazX']So my question with all of this is money. There are plenty of ways that people that have money can already help their kids outside of school if they're a problem in school and can put them in private school if they want. It's the people without money that benefit from the public education system. So does your private school system work based on tuition paid by the parents like it does now or on tax-supported vouchers that just allow people to pick between different schools?[/QUOTE]

I'll throw in my $0.02 on this. I'd like to see the public school system done away with and a all-private system put in in its place.

The money question is a good one. Obviously, the people who need the most help to turn into productive members of society are those who come from poorer, often one-parent families where they are not taught anything at home and not encouraged to learn at home. Add to this that many of the schools these kids go to are the worst schools around; good teachers don't want to teach there; they are surrounded by drugs, gangs and other crime; and other problems. Realize also that these school systems have less support from their local communities, especially financial support, due to them being located mostly in impovershed, inner-city areas.

The solution is to equalize funding, so that rich suburban school kid A gets as much government funding as poor inner-city kid B. Of course, this cannot keep parents from increasing funding from their own pocket, but you can at least guarantee that kids from poorer neighborhoods have an opportunity to go to a decent private school that fits their needs.

Here is a good example. Washington, DC, the city across the river from where I live, is expected to spend more than $16,000 per pupil this year, close if not tops in the nation. It also is home to one of the worst school systems in the country. Let's say we give a $10,000 voucher to the parents for each child for private education. In a class of 20 children, that's $200,000 worth of funding, so even after overhead and administration I see teacher salaries going up (and, thank God, being incentivized). But wait, the government would give $10,000 in the form of a voucher to each child, regardless of whether the lived in Northwest, Capitol Hill or Anacostia...and the parents could choose where their children would go to school (and thus their teachers, what they would concentrate on, discipline...).

And thus we have improved everybody's lives (except for those of the massive status-quo bureaucracy) while saving the government $6,000 per student (not taking into account extra money coming in from sale of school properties).
 
[quote name='dtcarson']"To stay out of poverty in America, it's necessary to do three simple things, social scientists have found: finish high school, don't have kids until you marry, and wait until you are at least 20 to marry. Do those three things, and the odds against your becoming impoverished are less than one in ten. Nearly 80 percent of everyone who fails to do those three things winds up poor."[/QUOTE]

Please. You're confusing correlation for causation. If "social scientists" found this out, then the authors of the article you quote would be more than happy to cite them by name, as they do with so many other sources in the article.

The whole argument is a red herring - by making this argument, they're ignoring how poverty recreates itself over generations (that is, between dropping out, having kids out of wedlock, and marrying early, you have poor parents having poor children who remain poor). You're ignoring time effects in favor of hand-selected variables that seem to imply some sort of "personal choice" to remain in poverty.

I'm not against completing your education, planning parenthood, and calculated marriages - but I'm also not daft enough to think that poverty would disappear if people followed these three tenets. The reason that is? Because those are what you would call "spurious" variables, that do more to implicate the cultural environment people grow up in (high poverty, high joblessness, high public assistance, high arrest/incarceration rate, minority concentration, etc.), and how the structure and setup of peoples' communities effects their life chances, including the probability of dropping out, having unplanned children, or early marriages.
 
[quote name='defiance_17']As a tax accountant, I'd like to keep my job. fuck the rest of you. :lol:[/QUOTE]
C'mon now. You don't actually think anything *anyone* can possibly think up would knock us out of biz, do you? :D

That's the real joke here. We know there will always, always, always be a way around a "fair share" of taxes. That's what "they" don't get. Unless you're doing Grandma's EZs, what accountants are really being paid for is:

1. Where's is come from?
2. Where's it goin?
3. How do I keep Uncle Sam's hand out of it?

Very intelligent people are paid vast sums of money to find ways around tax. It ain't (realistically) to "comply with tax code". That $XXXXXXXXX zillion is wasted just to comply" argument is hogwash. I don't have the answers (who does?), but let's stop pretending that Boortz is anyone's friend but his own. Hell, I was laughing out loud by the third paragraph. If I was an offshore, I'd send an friggin brigade of lobbyists to help this one.

It's good that people are talking about this kind of stuff. I like that some econ nerds showed up too. They're needed to bring macro into better focus. Good points (mostly) all around. But it ain't never gonna be fixed until we can remove the human element.

Good luck with that one.

Oh, and good points all around from mykevermin. Good form.
 
Keep in mind the Treasury Dept. calculated that second argument (higher tax proportions to everyone but those making over $200K per year, and those making under $15K per year).

The discussion of tax-exclusive and tax-inclusive prices is particularly fascinating, and shows just how intentionally sinister some of the fair tax proponents really are.
 
The FairTax Rate: a 23% tomato or a 30% tomato?

05/31/2007
As the FairTax gains more national attention, questions have again arisen about whether the FairTax rate is 23 percent or 30 percent. In the toxic environment that often accompanies public policy debates, FairTax.org has even been accused by some of misleading the public, even though full descriptions of "tax-inclusive" and "tax-exclusive" calculations abound on our Web site. We hope the following explanation puts all such questions to rest -- at last.
Let’s use an example to illustrate the difference between tax-inclusive and tax-exclusive tax rates.
Assume there is a worker named Joe who earns $125 and spends all of his earnings. Let’s further assume that the government requires him to pay $25 in taxes.
If the government put a tax on Joe’s income, he would earn $125 before tax and would have $100 after tax to spend at the General Store. Thus, Joe has to earn $125 to have $100 to spend. Joe would also have to file an income tax return.
If the government put a tax on what Joe spends, he would earn $125 and would have $125 to spend at the store. Of the $125 paid by Joe to the storekeeper, $100 would be for the goods he bought at the store and $25 would be taxes that the storekeeper would send to the government. Joe would not have to file a tax return, as the storekeeper sends the tax in to the government.
Either way, Joe pays $25 in taxes and the government gets $25 in taxes. With a tax on income, Joe pays the $25 directly to the government, and with the tax on spending (sales tax), he pays the $25 in taxes indirectly when he buys something from the General Store. The General Store sends the tax that Joe paid to the government.
12903.jpg
We may report the tax rate as $25/$125 = 20 percent, which is the tax-inclusive rate (meaning that the tax is included in the base). Alternately, we may think of the tax rate as $25/$100 = 25 percent, which is the tax-exclusive rate (meaning the tax is excluded from the base). The 23 percent FairTax rate set out in HR 25/S 1025 is a tax-inclusive rate, as is the current personal income tax, whereas most state-level sales taxes are quoted on a tax-exclusive basis. For ease of comparison, FairTax.org gives the tax rate both ways. Both rates are relevant, since the FairTax is replacing an income tax system, and 23 percent correctly represents the tax burden compared to the current system.

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer
 
:rofl:

I feel like I'm watching a street game of 3-card monty.

What the fact-check article points out includes several things. Foremost among them is that, when we think of sales tax, we think "tax-exclusive pricing," right? So, when we think of sales tax, we think of a % to pay over the listed price of a good. "Tax-inclusive," as a %, is smaller (see MBE's link again) than tax-exclusive. In the end, the "23%" fair tax figure is simultaneously 23% (tax-inclusive) and also 30% (tax-exclusive).

Now, the article you post (and, for fuck's sake, you've been slumming the vs forum long enough to know you should post a fucking link to your fucking source) tries to have it both ways; I've never seen such an obvious attempt to obfuscate the issue. So, while your post suggests that the % is 23, it never even *BEGINS* to tackle the criticism that hit it the hardest:

that a 23% tax-inclusive rates embedded in the price of goods is equal to a 30% tax-exclusive sales-tax rate. So, when fair tax advocates say "23% sales tax," it's a deliberately insidious argument, because you willingly neglect the easy explanation to opt for the apples-to-oranges tax rate comparison, versus a more sensible apples-to-apples comparison (standard 6-8%+ sales tax rates we pay now compared to 30%+ under the fair tax).

It's an easier sell to people if they're misled into thinking that it's a 23% sales tax, and not 30%. What's most bothersome is that the fair tax response to these criticisms doesn't even use its own proposed tax percentages in their hypothetical chart, making the comparison seem even more suspicious; moreover, 25 and 100 break down so cleanly in a number of ways that something could easily be hidden in there. I'll have to take a look at it again when my head isn't spinning from alcohol.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']:rofl:



that a 23% tax-inclusive rates embedded in the price of goods is equal to a 30% tax-exclusive sales-tax rate. So, when fair tax advocates say "23% sales tax," it's a deliberately insidious argument, because you willingly neglect the easy explanation to opt for the apples-to-oranges tax rate comparison, versus a more sensible apples-to-apples comparison (standard 6-8%+ sales tax rates we pay now compared to 30%+ under the fair tax).

[/quote]

How exactly is that Apples to Apples? Flat tax you have the 23 percent tax as explained above and nothing else. You can't compare that to a 6% sales tax that we currently have since you are paying other taxes as well. Am I missing something from your comment?
 
Because it's "hidden" in the cost of the goods. It's tax-inclusive. What's sinister about it is based on this:

1) 23% inclusive or 30% exclusive, it's the same number, really
2) the tax is on consumed goods (tacos, homes, video games, and more tacos)
3) it's intentionally deceiving to talk about a 23% tax on consumable goods, *knowing* that you're talking about a different percentage entirely from a 6-8% sales tax. To see fair tax proponents bristle when you call the tax precisely what it is (a 30%+ sales tax) shows how sinister their intentions are. Whether you call a Chevy a "car" or "automobile," you mean the same thing, right? So why do fair tax people try to defend a claim about their plan when it is premised on a mathematical proof of what they want?

As I said, it's easier to sell to people if you say "23% tax on consumable goods" with no further explanation, because they're thinking of that % the same way they think of sales tax as it is currently calculated. That's deception, because those people aren't saying "30-34% sales tax on consumable goods." In fact, they get *pissed* that you make such a claim (despite the fact that it's true!). That's why it's an apples-to-oranges comparison; because proponents are changing the equation for taxes on purchased goods without informing the average person.

Let me frame it like this: Suppose I have two questions:
1) How do you feel about a 23% sales tax replacing out current system of taxation?
2) How do you feel about a 30% sales tax replacing out current system of taxation?

Do you think the same % of people would support those, or do you think more people would support #1 over #2? 23%, as a lower number, has greater appeal (despite not being genuinely represented by those who support a consumable tax).
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Because it's "hidden" in the cost of the goods. It's tax-inclusive. What's sinister about it is based on this:

1) 23% inclusive or 30% exclusive, it's the same number, really
2) the tax is on consumed goods (tacos, homes, video games, and more tacos)
3) it's intentionally deceiving to talk about a 23% tax on consumable goods, *knowing* that you're talking about a different percentage entirely from a 6-8% sales tax. To see fair tax proponents bristle when you call the tax precisely what it is (a 30%+ sales tax) shows how sinister their intentions are. Whether you call a Chevy a "car" or "automobile," you mean the same thing, right? So why do fair tax people try to defend a claim about their plan when it is premised on a mathematical proof of what they want?

As I said, it's easier to sell to people if you say "23% tax on consumable goods" with no further explanation, because they're thinking of that % the same way they think of sales tax as it is currently calculated. That's deception, because those people aren't saying "30-34% sales tax on consumable goods." In fact, they get *pissed* that you make such a claim (despite the fact that it's true!). That's why it's an apples-to-oranges comparison; because proponents are changing the equation for taxes on purchased goods without informing the average person.

Let me frame it like this: Suppose I have two questions:
1) How do you feel about a 23% sales tax replacing out current system of taxation?
2) How do you feel about a 30% sales tax replacing out current system of taxation?

Do you think the same % of people would support those, or do you think more people would support #1 over #2? 23%, as a lower number, has greater appeal (despite not being genuinely represented by those who support a consumable tax).[/quote]

Well couldn't you then say #2 is just as sinister of opponents of it since you are essentially getting the same thing?

Obviously more people, who have no knowledge of it, would support #1 as it sounds better. But people claiming that it is a 30% tax to make it sound bad are essentially doing the same thing, just for different reasons.
 
When you consider *how* the % are presented, then your claim in the post just above this falls apart. It's sinister b/c when talking about consumer goods, a tax-exclusive rate is a common metric that we all understand. After all, it's on every receipt we get.

That's not to say that we don't have tax-inclusive goods. Alcohol and tobacco products come to mind immediately. However, whether either of those, paychecks, or anything else, when we discuss concepts of tax-inclusivity, we don't tend to talk about them as a percentage, do we?

It's mostly problematic because proponents of consumption taxation (what I'll now call it, since "fair tax" is such a flagrantly loaded phrase) have changed the metric of tax % being debated, but not clearly informed those they wish to persuade. So, to be honest, discussing consumption taxation in the form of "30-34% sales tax" is more fair and not sinister, since it is done in the framework of a common understanding of tax rates.
 
Even if it is a 30% sales tax, isn't that still better than the government taking away 35% of your paycheck upfront? At least you have control over how you're being taxed.
 
[quote name='dopa345']Even if it is a 30% sales tax, isn't that still better than the government taking away 35% of your paycheck upfront? At least you have control over how you're being taxed.[/QUOTE]

I think the point myke is making is that the way they present the percentages is deliberately calculated in a different fashion from our current sales taxes, thus confusing a lot of people (see the article again for this, even among proponents). The argument on whether it's better or not is a whole other issue. But as myke said, the attempt at obfuscating the issue is puzzling from those who want a more fair system.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']2) the tax is on consumed goods (tacos, homes, video games, and more tacos)[/QUOTE]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-VPdpunnL0[/media]
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I think the point myke is making is that the way they present the percentages is deliberately calculated in a different fashion from our current sales taxes, thus confusing a lot of people (see the article again for this, even among proponents). The argument on whether it's better or not is a whole other issue. But as myke said, the attempt at obfuscating the issue is puzzling from those who want a more fair system.[/quote]

How is it confusing a lot of people? It comes out to the exact same. it's just a matter of wording, not fudging numbers. 30% or 23% you are coming out the same. Don't get me wrong though, I understand completely what Myke is saying.
 
Its confusing because people are stupid. If you told someone 23%=30% they'd look at you like you were retarded. Normally they'd be right, but not in this instance. Well, they still might be right, but not for that reason.

[quote name='schuerm26']How is it confusing a lot of people? It comes out to the exact same. it's just a matter of wording, not fudging numbers. 30% or 23% you are coming out the same. Don't get me wrong though, I understand completely what Myke is saying.[/quote]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top