Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
The Fraudulent Tax
mises.org — Larry Vance finds that the advocates of the FairTax have backpeddled on many of their most far-flug claims for the merits of their plan. But they still aren't admiting just how terrible this idea is, nor that the US government should never pass a budget that is in the trillions. With taxes, it is size, not the type of tax system, that matters.
haroldrgross- 221 diggs
- digg it
- CaptA, on 10/12/2007, -26/+25Excellent review of the Fair Tax by Larry Vance.
I say:
To tax is to plunder. It makes NO difference what you call a tax. It is, has always been, and will always be immoral to tax. (Steal) Only simple-minded people, residing in the depths of denial could possibly accept any "tax." (And guess what? They are, and do!)
Victor Hugo quiped: The one thing we learn from history is; we don't learn.
Pay your taxes. VOTE. Wave the flag for democracy. Do what you are told -- meaning - "or else ... we'll slap your nates silly!" Capish?
Check 6- kingpin2k, on 10/12/2007, -15/+26While I agree wholeheartedly that taxation is theft, I must say that I see some value in achieving the ultimate end of tax elimination by implementing the Fair Tax. The people will never reach a point of rebellion without first seeing exactly what it is that's being taken from them. Today, that is hidden by craftily worded legislation, and some even believe that receiving a refund shortly after April 15 means they paid no tax.
I'm an advocate of the Fairtax only because it removes the veil. It places the cost of the federal government in plain sight at the bottom of every receipt. Additionally, it spares money not spent from any theft. Money is free to grow and remain untouched.
I would join the revolution, but in the meantime I'll seek to expose the truth. - AlexApetrei, on 10/12/2007, -32/+5Only an a-patriotic teroristian would incite the good people of america to not pay their taxis.
- DawgDaze, on 10/12/2007, -8/+25Very excellently said Kingpin2k. That is exactly the reason I'm such a strong supporter of the FairTax. I agree with Vance on the points about the Fed's spending and taxation, but I don't believe that capitol hill will EVER allow a proposal to pass that completely and immediately eliminates all but the bare necessity taxes required to perform constitutional duties unless they are FORCED to by the people. I fully believe that it's withholding that is pulling the wool over our collective eyes, and the reason that there's not a daily march on Washington demanding that spending and taxation be reigned in. Ask your friends how much they paid in taxes last year and they'll probably tell you "None, I got a refund!" It's that mentality which is causing the lack of tax reform progress, and that mentality that would stop when people can easily see and feel the full impact of the level of taxation in this country. The combination of having nothing removed from your check by your employer, seeing that money in the bank, and then seeing on your receipts exactly how much more expensive everything is because of the Fed's spending spree, is the only thing that I believe will anger and mobilize the people enough to make the government smaller in a meaningful way.
I respect and agree with Vance, but he needs to understand that this is a process. He'll not get his tax-free utopia in one fail swoop. - zigamorph, on 10/12/2007, -19/+7I just wish a FLAT TAX would get implimented. If everybody pays 50% (the current taxation rate not including sales) on every dollar they spend and they get the full pay of their employer. Politions would have to sand up and defend a 1% raise instead of hiding it in things like Medicare, Social Security, teired taxation, and etc.
With a flat tax every united states citizen would see exactly how much the government was making off of them. Every citizen would see every change in tax law. Every citizen would be informed about what is happening in Washington even if they don't follow news or politics. Even non-citizens that likes American goods would be paying taxes.
You know why this won't happen anytime soon. Money = Power, and the politions that have budget money to divy out gives them power. And politions don't like to give up power. Plus the whole Rich are paying less than the Poor argument is pretty much null and void because everybody is paying the same percent. And the Rich buy more so they would be paying more.
I can only hope that I will see this enacted, but right now I would settle for being able to invest the 13% of social security, I give out of every paycheck, in to a wise investment for my family. The government is never a wise investment in my eyes. - UrlorJkron, on 10/12/2007, -8/+20I can understand not liking taxes, but I fail to see any other options for funding a government.
- Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -10/+17@UrlorJkron : Make it do less. Much less. And that those things be *DESIRED* enough that people will pay voluntarily. But I'm extreme.
- inkyblue2, on 10/12/2007, -14/+23taxes are plunder? WTF?! for those of us who still enjoy the protection of a tax-funded military, drive on tax-funded highways, and went to tax-funded schools, please explain what the heck you are talking about and how complete elimination of taxes would better our lives.
- nreynolds, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8@ corrosionx
ya, they're will be plenty of people that voluntarily give money to help out the government.
/sarcasm - labmouse42, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9If we lower the Federal Budget, we can lower the amount we need to pay in taxes. For example, roughly 50% of our budget goes to the Department of Defence and Department of Homeland Security.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/budget.html
I'm not saying that we should remove our Military, I'm saying that it does not need to be as large as it is. - Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -10/+9tax-funded military: screwing with other people's countries for the last 50 years....
tax-funded highways: traffic jams, potholes, mismanagement... taxes are the worst way to fund highways (especially in Quebec, we have overpasses failing on a yearly basis)
tax-funded schools: If you got out of there educated, you're lucky.
Food is essential: why don't we have tax-funded cafeterias where everyone is forced to eat what the government decides?
Just because you are short-sighted enough to think the only way to fund these things is through force, doesn't mean it is. Voluntary funding of these would allow ressources to flow to the most efficient means of achieving the results you want, instead of having the government decide for everyone and having it decide how much it will steal from you to have it work ITS way. - Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6"tax-funded military: screwing with other people's countries for the last 50 years....
tax-funded highways: traffic jams, potholes, mismanagement... taxes are the worst way to fund highways (especially in Quebec, we have overpasses failing on a yearly basis)
tax-funded schools: If you got out of there educated, you're lucky.
Food is essential: why don't we have tax-funded cafeterias where everyone is forced to eat what the government decides?"
Tax-funded military: Preventing your home being taken from you by force for the last 50 years. Good luck defending your property with whatever arms you buy from not needing to pay taxes any more. I'm guessing your resources won't stand up to a tank or two.
Tax-funded highways: Care to suggest an alternative? I'm all for using technology to implement a "pay per usage" road tax system, but I don't really think a toll booth on every street corner would be an improvement.
Tax-funded schools: Providing basic standards for everyone, which means more skilled workers, which means a better economy for the country, which means more wealth for everyone. Last time I checked, countries without tax-funded schools had abysmal rates of literacy, far worse than those with them.
Tax-funded food: Nice strawman. Well done on deliberately ignoring the distinction between "tax-funded services that are there if you need them" and "tax-funded services that everyone must use", in an intellectually dishonest attempt to prove your point. As with schools, if you want to pay to get a better standard, the option is there for you. If you need the government's help, there are soup kitchens.
Stop with the barefaced lies that you know are lies, in this vain attempt to prove the "truth" of your beliefs. - spinomatic, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4As with all else in life, the *right* thing probably falls somewhere between the "taxation is theft" group and the "its fine as-is" group. I would certainly support a plan for increasing the efficiency by which my government spends my money, but I can't agree that we shut the tap off. Assuming I get ALL my wages, how will I then distribute my dollars to road builders, firefighters, military (I ENJOY the protection they afford us), policeman, county library workers, etc. Would these services be taken over by private enterprise since the government is out of business? If so, how much would I pay for them? I think you'd just be trading one set of issues for another.
- hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3For food, if you need the government's help there are also food stamps.
The government should get out of actually running the schools though. Separation of concerns and what not.
The best description of the concept is in computer programming: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_concerns
Some of the concepts behind it is the reason we have separation of church and state. - rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -9/+6Antitax libertarianism is the ideology of the selfish child. Grown-ups understand that with freedom comes responsibility, with benefits come duties. Children just think about themselves.
The purpose of organizing in a society is to pool resources and gain benefits from economy of scale and safety in numbers. Taxes are nothing more or less than a way to work together as mature members of a consensual society (yes, consensual, don't like it move somewhere else) in order to address common needs that are either too big, too difuse, too complex or too hidden to be addressed efficently by the marketplace - needs such as the interstate highway system (big), poverty (difuse), security (complex) or food safety (hidden).
Everyone benefits when trade occurs more efficiently along routes that span jurisdictions and markets; everyone benefits when poverty is reduced, because poverty (even if you don't care about morality, as libertarians typically do not) is a drag on economic productivity and a social cost; everyone benefits when everyone is more secure - a publicly-funded police force/firefighting entity/coast guard/ is more equitable, more accountable and more effective than competing private forces are; everyone benefits when food inspection is thorough and uniform - health costs effect us all - even though we pay our health costs already to private entities, we all pay the price of declining public health due to cuts in oversight, prevention and education.
It is empirically, historically, factual that pooled public funding, for many, many things, is actually the *most* efficient use of individual assets. Naysayers typically rely on second-hand propaganda, without actually looking at the numbers (for example, contrary to popular right-wing demagoguery, Medicare is one of the most efficient health programs in the world - and far more efficient, in terms of dollars spent on health care vs. dollars spent on administration, than any US HMO. Simple fact, has been since the 1980's. And Medicaid is even more efficient compared to commercial counterparts - it costs less per person treated, and its costs have been rising more slowly than private health care. Simple fact. And that is just one of many, many examples where the public sector has outperformed the private sector. I know this violates your religious dogma, and that you are as unlikely to examine the facts for yourself as a global warming denier, a Holocaust denier or an evolution denier, because people driven by blind faith, no matter what it is in, simply do not response to reason--but it is nonetheless true.
Unfortunately, one of the consequences of the war on community and civilization (disguised as the "war on government"), is a dramatic reduction in basic education of our populace in critical thinking, civics and participatory democracy. So, we end up with childish idiots who spout myths about the evils of government, using an Internet created by government funding.
The real problem is not taxation, it is ignorance. - ridiculoufish, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3I live in an apartment, and therefore I pay rent. Is that theft?
I live in America, and therefore I pay taxes. Why is that theft? - fyngyrz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12"I live in an apartment, and therefore I pay rent. Is that theft?"
No. You agreed to pay the landlord. The landlord agreed to provide you shelter. There's paperwork signed by both of you in which the mutual exchange has been agreed by *both parties* to be of satisfactory content. Such agreement is the basis of law since about the 1200's.
"I live in America, and therefore I pay taxes. Why is that theft?"
Because there is no mutual agreement. You must pay taxes, regardless of if you think you're getting good (or any) value from them. If you do not pay, you will be jailed, and/or fined, and/or your assets will be confiscated. This is not so much simply theft -- in other words, not a stealthy burglary -- it is a great deal more similar to a mugging at gunpoint.
The only way it will not be theft is (a) if you agree to it as is (your choice, of course, just as you could happily give your money to a mugger) or (b) if the state changes things enough to give you sufficient value to elicit an agreement from you, or (c) allows you to earmark exactly how your taxes will be spent. Good luck with any of that, by the way. :/ - hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2Except that for a mutual agreement there has to be ways of arbitrating if it fails to hold up, In order to say that there is no mutual agreement between you and the United States, you have to demonstrate that ways of arbitrating such an agreement are nonexistent or ineffectual. If you rent an apartment and you cease to agree, you can move. You can move from the United States as well. You can take the landlord to court. You can take the United States to court as well. You can even vote representatives to the government. Try doing that with the landlord.
- nybble41, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@rationalist
You can pool your money with whoever you wish -- no one is saying that you should be *prevented* from joining some sort of collective organization with other like-minded individuals. However, that isn't what taxation is. Taxation is forcing those who do not wish to participate in your collective program to pay for it regardless. It's not "consensual", it's coercive. Forcing people to join your organization and pay dues to create "economies of scale" for yourself is based on exactly the same motivation as petty theft: benefitting yourself at someone else's expense.
Your proposal is to force someone to choose between moving somewhere far away (imposing on them the loss of their fixed property and existing relationships, i.e. their land and home, separation from their friends and family, etc.) on the one hand, and the theft of their property through taxation on the other. Both are aggressive; both are unjust. The exhortation "If you don't like it, move!" can be used just as easily to support the actions of any other protection racket or criminal gang, not just a government; one can always move somewhere else, of course, and sometimes that's the best option, but that doesn't mean it's wrong to fight back when threatened. - nybble41, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8@ridiculoufish
The difference is that the landowner ownes the apartment, and can thus charge for its use. The government doesn't own all the property within the polical boundaries of the country, and thus cannot justly charge for its use.
@hackwrench - "You can take the United States to court as well."
Only in a US-appointed court, and only if the government decides beforehand that the case is in its best interest. That isn't mutual agreement or arbitration; it's just good PR. The same applies to elected representatives: the government lets people vote because it dampens the desire for revolution while simultaneously increasing people's dependence on the government. The government exists to serve the special interests, and always has. Wealth redistribution -- which is the sole purpose of any government -- only works in one direction: from the many to the few. The "wealth" doesn't have to be money, per se; it can just as easily be e.g. satisfaction with the way others behave (power). Either way, governments always work to impose the will of a small but active group over the mostly apathetic masses.
[Reposting as the first attempt ended up in the wrong place. Editing doesn't seem to be working for me, either -- I couldn't blank out the misplaced comment.] - joybran, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@ DawgDaze and kingpin2k
"The combination of having nothing removed from your check by your employer, seeing that money in the bank, and then seeing on your receipts exactly how much more expensive everything is because of the Fed's spending spree, is the only thing that I believe will anger and mobilize the people enough to make the government smaller in a meaningful way."
If people don't look at their pay stubs and notice how much money is being taken out for taxes, what makes you think they will look at the bottom of their sales receipts. They will blame the higher prices they pay on the merchants rather than the government. Not only that, with the monthly checks they receive from the government, they will think just like the idiots who get income tax refunds, "wow, look how the government takes care of me, sending me money every month." Anyone who tries to cut government spending will be told that it means cutting back on the "rebate" checks, which every idiot in America will certainly oppose.
There is no guarantee that paychecks will be that much higher, just like there is no guarantee that the 16th amendment and the income tax will be repealed. The Fair Tax Bill itself doesn't repeal either the 16th amendment or the income tax. It has no provision that would affect how businesses pay their employees.
The businesses could very well keep the money they used to withhold in order to lower their wholesale prices to make up for the enormous increase in retail price after the tax is added. Even if they pay the same gross and don't withhold anything, they certainly aren't going to pay the employee the "employer's contribution" of taxes like Social Security, even though that was previously part of their cost of labor. There is no way to know what individual businesses will feel they need to do with this whole new tax world to which they have to adjust in order to survive. - fyngyrz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@hackwrench "Except that for a mutual agreement"
There *is no* mutual agreement. I *do not, have not, will not,* agree!
"there has to be ways of arbitrating if it fails to hold up, In order to say that there is no mutual agreement between you and the United States, you have to demonstrate that ways of arbitrating such an agreement are nonexistent or ineffectual."
Just listen to yourself. You're saying that it is perfectly OK for some random entity, with whom you have NOT agreed to anything, to take your house as long as there is some way to arbitrate. Without an agreement, anything any other entity does to your home is illicit. The FACT is, that in order for their to be an agreement, an agreement has to have been made. That is the not case with taxes: No agreement has been made. Taxation is taking by use of force, period, end of story, UNLESS you agree. I. Do. Not. Agree.
I have, after careful consideration, determined that the "value" provided for the money taken is woefully insufficient. Iraq war? Don't want it. Monuments? Don't want 'em. FCC? No use for it whatsoever. DEA, FBI, CIA? No use. Standing military? No use. Armed militia? Not being supported, though I think that's probably a valid federal role. Highways? Extremely unsafe, a virtual "shooting gallery" for hitting wild animals, and designed to last only a few years before they fall into disrepair (did you know there are 2000+ year old Roman roads still unrepaired that are perfectly usable... we could use some frigging lessons.) Drug war? No use for it. Tax exemptions for churches and charities? Don't agree. Fencing out Mexicans? Don't want to. Or Canadians, etc. We are all immigrants, including the "native" Americans. Fancy buildings in Washington? An exercise in hubris and pride. Turn them into charity-supported museums or let them rot, but whatever, I don't want to pay for them. They do me absolutely no good. I do not want federal public schooling. I do not want federal arts. I do not want federal research. Etc. In other words, the feds -- Vito -- are forcing me to purchase a huge range of products I do not want. Coercion. *Not agreement!*
People here have talked about firemen, police... those are local. There is no legitimate role for "federal firemen" or "federal police."
I'd be all for dismantling our current federal system and starting over. But I am *not* for supporting what we have. Unfortunately, I am *coerced* into doing so *without* any agreement.
"If you rent an apartment and you cease to agree, you can move."
I did not "rent", or in any way otherwise request, services from the federal government, and I have certainly not entered into any agreement with them. They take my money, by force -- coercion -- on a regular basis. That is not the basis for an agreement any more than any other "protection" racket is (ie, give us your money or we destroy you.)
"You can move from the United States as well."
Yes, I could. However, everything I own is here. So I choose not to. This is not related to the tax issue; the government has no right to my land and property. It has the power to *take* them, certainly, but no right.
"You can take the landlord to court."
Only if you have an AGREEMENT with the landlord... funny how that is, eh?
"You can take the United States to court as well."
The courts are a coercive arm of the government. They have been co-opted into being an (illegal) enforcement branch of the IRS *and* they are no longer operating within the bounds of the constitution, and as such, they no longer have authority -- they just have power. Because of this, you know as well as I do that the courts won't force the government to do anything different, much less correct. They cannot be trusted with reigning in the government's crazed thieving spree.
"You can even vote representatives to the government."
A complete myth. Fact: The more people involved in voting, the less your vote counts. Fact: There are no representatives in the government (or standing for election) that in any way represent my interests; no such person is electable anyway, because no such person can survive within the two-party system. So my *actual* choice is no choice or between criminal A (Democrat) and criminal B (Republican.) That's precisely the equivalent of Vito marching into my store, saying, you can vote for Vinnie here to break your legs, or you can vote for Frankie over there to break your legs, or you can vote for your wife to not break your legs and I'll simply pick Vinnie or Frankie myself and we'll see to it that your legs get broken. Now, pay up.
"Try doing that with the landlord."
No, you have it exactly backwards. I can choose from a myriad of landlords; I can choose none and *become* a landlord or landowner and completely opt-out of having to deal with a landlord (which in fact is what I did... I saved all my life and bought my home for cash when I was ready.) I have no such set of choices with the Feds because they will, figuratively speaking, break my legs if I make any choice except pay them what they demand, when they say so.
Not surprisingly, I like my (figurative) legs just as they are. So I pay. It is coercion. Not agreement. - joybran, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@ inkyblue2
"taxes are plunder? WTF?! for those of us who still enjoy the protection of a tax-funded military, drive on tax-funded highways, and went to tax-funded schools, please explain what the heck you are talking about and how complete elimination of taxes would better our lives."
Taxes are plunder because they take from you, by force, money that you earned and they give you no choice in how that money is spent. That is the very definition of theft.
What you don't understand is that you are paying for all those tax-funded things you like, but you are also paying for every tax-funded thing you hate.
In addition, the cost of all those tax-funded things are much higher than they would be if they were provided by a competitive market. Government is always wasteful and inefficient because it has no competitive incentive. Politicians and bureaucrats make MORE money by being corrupt and wasteful and inefficient than by being honest and thrifty. Even when they happen to be honest individuals, they don't have market forces to tell them what things are worth, and they aren't held accountable for their mistakes.
When you have a tax system that allows more and more money to be taken from the citizens (not to mention a Federal Reserve System that allows the legal counterfeiting of our money), there is no limit to how large, corrupt and wasteful the government can become. - joybran, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@ nreynolds
"ya, they're will be plenty of people that voluntarily give money to help out the government.
/sarcasm"
That is exactly the point. If people truly believed their taxes were being used for things they want, they would contribute voluntarily. In fact, the idiots who say they are happy to pay their taxes because of all the wonderful things the government does with that money would surely continue to donate voluntarily, wouldn't they?
Or would they? Maybe they are happy to pay taxes because they believe, rightly or wrongly, that they receive more from government than they pay in. But would they pay the same if it really were voluntary? Maybe it is only net receivers of tax money who support taxes because they want to keep benefiting from the labor of society's producers, who are the net payers.
Here's a novel idea. Why not let everyone keep the money they earn and just pay for the government "services" they want? Oops, that wouldn't work because it wouldn't be government anymore. Government is force and paying for services is voluntary exchange, also known as freedom. - joybran, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9@ rationalist
"Unfortunately, one of the consequences of the war on community and civilization (disguised as the "war on government"), is a dramatic reduction in basic education of our populace in critical thinking, civics and participatory democracy. So, we end up with childish idiots who spout myths about the evils of government, using an Internet created by government funding."
If you think your rant is rational, you must be a product of that government "education" system that has been reducing the critical thinking ability of our populace.
The philosophy of libertarianism is based on the ethics of liberty, which proves that individuals have the right, the ability, and the responsibility to voluntarily create their communities and social institutions, rather than having those institutions forced on them by some group of elites who use force to rule them. It teaches that the best allocation of limited resources occurs when individuals have the freedom to pursue their own self-interests and to find voluntary solutions to the problems of existence, rather than having "solutions" forced on them by their rulers.
There is nothing about libertarianism that is opposed to morality or to community or to charity. Libertarianism is only opposed to the use of force or fraud to kill, enslave, or rob individuals. Governments are the institutions that claim the legal right to kill, enslave, and rob individuals, for the "greater good" of course. This is why libertarians are opposed to governments. We believe that sacrificing some individuals for the sake of other individuals is never a "greater good." In other words, we believe that the ends NEVER justify the means. If the means are evil, as all acts of agression are, then the ends will be evil.
If you look objectively at the history of our country (and I don't mean the propaganda taught in our government schools), you will see that all the goods and blessings of our great nation have come from our relative freedom. You will also see that all the problems that have plagued us have come from the continual growth of our federal government, as was predicted by the so-called anti-federalists in 1788. To use your own example, the Internet was a useless government boondoggle until it was opened to private development, which made it the wonderful communication tool it is today. - rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2@nybble
"Your proposal is to force someone to choose between moving somewhere far away (imposing on them the loss of their fixed property and existing relationships, i.e. their land and home, separation from their friends and family, etc.) on the one hand, and the theft of their property through taxation on the other."
Your proposal is to opt out of the responsibilities we share, and which benefit us all, so that you can continue to enjoy the benefits without the cost.
You (and I) are alive today because of medical advances primarily funded by our tax dollars, which increased child mortality rates to what they are today. It wasn't private enterprise that funded a polio vaccine, nor was it the private sector that instituted public health standards. It was our government, the one we all fund. If you don't like the way things are, you can vote to change them. What you want is to impose your beliefs on everyone else, for your own personal benefit, without having to deal with messy things like "democracy" or "republics". Just look at your argument, and that of others here responding to me - it is all about you, and your personal gripes, not about society or the common good. That is what I mean about libertarianism being a childish and selfish philosophy. I am willing to sacrifice some of my hard-earned money for the common good; I understand the enlightened self-interest of contributing to a common pool that can be leveraged to take care of needs bigger than any individual.
You and others here express a blind, irrational and unsubstantiated faith that the marketplace will somehow, magically, take care of everything. History tells us otherwise, and even Adam Smith and his peers recognized the limitations of the market and the need for centralized institutions to keep a society healthy.
For those quoting Jefferson, he was not a libertarian, and attempting to hijack his Republicanism (in the traditional sense, not the modern party-associated sense) to argue against taxation is dishonest. Jefferson opposed a strong central government - but only because he favored strong local government. He was a strong proponent of the common good and shared civic responsibility, he just believed government should be as close to the people as possible. He supported a ward-based network of interdependent governments deeply accountable to their manageably-sized local constituencies. He was NOT a libertarian, not at all. - rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Just a quick correction, I meant the smallpox vaccine, not the polio vaccine. I was talking about how you and I are alive today because of medical research largely funded by tax dollars, and the smallpox vaccine was an example of that, and its R&D were largely government funded, as was the campaign to eradicate it globally.
Polio, while debilitating, was not a major cause of infant mortality, so it is not relevant to this particular example - although, it is worth noting that the cure for polio was also the result of government action - first, the creation of the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis by FDR, which evolved into the March of Dimes. Jonas Salk (my mother was briefly a technician in his lab) did create his own lab on land donated by the City of San Diego (another government) and the March of Dimes funded the major clinical trials. The vaccine was freely administered to the entire country courtesy of taxpayer funded government.
These are just a couple of literally thousands of examples of life-altering events in the history of this country (speaking as a USian) that came about solely because of the existence of a taxpayer-funded central government. Sadly, young people today are largely ignorant of their own country's history, including the determinative role the federal, state and local governments played and continue to play in improving the quality of their lives - and often their very life itself. - joybran, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@ rationalist
"If you don't like the way things are, you can vote to change them. What you want is to impose your beliefs on everyone else, for your own personal benefit, without having to deal with messy things like "democracy" or "republics"."
This is rich. You have the right to vote, and if 51% of the other voters agree with you, you get to impose your wishes on the other 49% plus all the people who knew better than to waste their time voting or who thought it was immoral to try to impose their wishes on others by force through voting. In other words, if you can't convince people who are living off your money to let you keep your money, you're a selfish bastard who has no sense of civic responsibility.
And you say WE are the ones trying to force our beliefs on others? We are trying to convince people that freedom is the greatest benefit for the greatest number of people, but you want to convince people that freedom is harmful to them, that they need the nanny state, and that it is selfish and immoral for them to object to being plundered.
We are perfectly willing to let people like you continue to have your government with all its wonderful benefits. We just want you to let us opt out of government "services" without being forced to support YOUR government.
- kingpin2k, on 10/12/2007, -15/+26While I agree wholeheartedly that taxation is theft, I must say that I see some value in achieving the ultimate end of tax elimination by implementing the Fair Tax. The people will never reach a point of rebellion without first seeing exactly what it is that's being taken from them. Today, that is hidden by craftily worded legislation, and some even believe that receiving a refund shortly after April 15 means they paid no tax.
- brianmost, on 10/12/2007, -5/+30My biggest complaint remains that in a transition to the FairTax, all of the money I have saved over the years - income that I've already paid taxes on - will be taxed a second time. This will be grossly unfair for anyone who hasn't been using tax-deferred retirement accounts exclusively.
- CaptA, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18To brianmost,
I agree with you. The problem is not your insight. Consider this: it's the use of the word "fair." It's a heart-grabber!! Now just remember: To the lion, the rabbit is lunch; to the rabbit, it's NOT FAIR! Fair is merely a come-along word!!
Finally, when you truly have had "enough," you'll start to take measures to protect all of the "rabbits" you've worked so hard for in your life. (The second taxing) There will always be the "gimme, gimme, gimme crowd who will VOTE to use government as their lion (gun). But even these supplicants will end up as a "meal" one day. To eat -- or be eaten. Somehow you should strive to be the former. Individual sovereignty is the solution to a growing and ever-threatening problem. Don't feed the lion!!
You're smart! You'll figure this out!! - kingpin2k, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8I understand your sentiment. However, you must realize that you're paying it anyway. Through the notion of "corporate" taxation (which is a huge misnomer), the prices yuo pay for everything are inflated by an amount approximately equal to what the Fairtax will cost you. These are embedded taxes. You pay them now. If the income tax continues, you will pay them when you receive your tax-deferred withdrawals from your retirement account. Under the Fairtax, it is estimated that something which costs $100 today (with embedded taxes) will cost $100 after the Fairtax (because the embedded taxes have been removed and replaced with the explicit Fairtax amount.
- Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7"Through the notion of "corporate" taxation (which is a huge misnomer), the prices yuo pay for everything are inflated by an amount approximately equal to what the Fairtax will cost you. These are embedded taxes."
I think pretty much everyone knows that if you got rid of corporate taxes, the savings would go to shareholders first, board members second, normal employees third. It's wishful thinking to imagine that the savings would be passed on to the customer in any manner. Prices are set by what people are prepared to pay, people have shown they are prepared to pay the current prices, so why would a business lower them? - MaynardsTool, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Actually that money should be taxed less. Capital gains taxes would be a thing of the past. This should save you some money, especially in a world where things are 22% cheaper, and you don't have to pay property taxes, or a CPA every year. Oh and did I mention that you get a check from the government every month that will pay all the taxes on the things you need to get by...Oh and one last thing, until you retire you will avoid paying income tax, social security tax, medicare tax...the list goes on. You get to keep 33-40% more of each paycheck...having your money "taxed twice" (if you insist on putting it that way) is a small price to pay.
- UrlorJkron, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Most companies have competetors thant would love to under cut the other's price.
- kingpin2k, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7"Prices are set by what people are prepared to pay, people have shown they are prepared to pay the current prices, so why would a business lower them?"
Well, you got the demand side of the curve right, now let's try the supply side. Competetive forces also play a role in determining price. If Company X decided to use some portion of their tax savings to reduce price (and increase market share) would people still shop at Company Y because they "have shown they are prepared to pay..."?
I think your cynicism is well-founded. I do not expect corporations to behave well because they're intinsically good. I expect them to compete ferociously. - hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Prices are set by what people are prepared to pay, people have shown they are prepared to pay the current prices, so why would a business lower them?"
Because the price people pay is actually the listed "price + tax" Businesses must lower the listed price in order for the current price to remain the same. - fyngyrz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Businesses must lower the listed price in order for the current price to remain the same."
Also because the situation opens an opportunity for Joe Competitor to significantly underprice Larry Greedy, should he try to maintain the same retail, adding the taxes on top of that for original_retail+tax for a 130% comparative new cost; Joe Competitor will come along, go for original_retail-taxes for a 100% comparative new cost, and Virgil Consumer will dependably buy from Joe Competitor, putting Larry Greedy right the heck out of business. That's the ultimate motivation. You can only charge premium prices if you add value. For any commodity item, you cannot charge premium prices at all.
- CaptA, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18To brianmost,
- Libberkey, on 10/12/2007, -9/+23Fair Tax, like Vance sez, is Fraud Tax. "Fair Tax" is an oxymoron, to start with.
Envision a Whole New Congress. Envision NO income tax or any other such taxes. Envision a Federal Govt paid for my such taxes as import/excise - small taxes that impact every product every person (U.S.) will use - the closest to "no tax at all" we can ever come. Envision the Federal Reserve dismantled permanently. Envision legislators penalized for violating the Constitution.
America. Free again. Can it be possible?- CaptA, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11To Libberkey,
You are a man after my own heart!
You state and ask above: America. Free again. Can it be possible?
Yep! One day it (America) will be free again. However, I sense there may be blood in the streets between now and that day. I do not think the American plutocrats will either leave peaceably or without strings attached. (Chop, chop!) Again, almost anything is possible. Probable, becomes an enigma. (That you will be taxed into submission!) I hope that in your lifetime you get to see a free America. Real freedom in America, that is ... no hand in your pocket; without your permission.
Best to you Libberkey. - joybran, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15America won't be free as long as the vast majority of Americans continue to voluntarily support our tyrannical government. According to the IRS, 63 million Americans do not file 1040s. Also according to the IRS, approximately 220 individuals are sent to prison each year for not filing 1040s. Imagine if 163 million Americans refused to file 1040s. How many individuals would be sent to prison? 500? 1000?
Maybe this is what the "Fair Tax" advocates fear. Your odds of going to prison for not paying income taxes is about the same as winning a lottery. However, the odds of being able to survive without paying a consumption tax (which means without buying food and other essentials) is very low. - joybran, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Oops, my edit didn't work.
I meant to say the odds of surviving without paying a consumption tax is even lower than the odds of winning a lottery. - Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -10/+9Envision an America without a police force, without the means to uphold the law. Without road maintenance, so travel is heavily impeded. Where the better off continue to mop up more and more of the wealth, destroying the middle class. Where the less well off get poorer and poorer, where their health gets so bad that they can't work so the economy collapses, where their children get no education so they can't do skilled jobs anymore so the economy collapses, etc.
Sounds ***** awesome to me. /sarcasm - joybran, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@ Bloshocker
"Envision an America without a police force, without the means to uphold the law. Without road maintenance, so travel is heavily impeded. Where the better off continue to mop up more and more of the wealth, destroying the middle class. Where the less well off get poorer and poorer, where their health gets so bad that they can't work so the economy collapses, where their children get no education so they can't do skilled jobs anymore so the economy collapses, etc."
That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. Do you really think that entrepreneurs wouldn't rush in with new and better services to replace the few government services that people actually want? No entrepreneur is going to send billions of dollars in foreign aid to prop up friendly dictators or build bridges to nowhere to benefit special interests or start wars to funnel money to defense contractors, but personally I won't miss those services.
Envision an America with competing protection services that allow you to shop around for just the kind and amount of protection you need. Envision a justice system geared toward restitution and reparation to the victim rather than punishment and rehabilitation to the criminal. Envision an America where you actually have to harm someone before you can be sent to prison and you can avoid prison by repairing whatever harm you did.
Envision an America with privately owned and maintained roads that compete for your business by providing safety and convenience. Those roads might be patrolled by security people who don't have any quotas for generating fines but are only interested in keeping dangerous drivers from creating a hazard and will politely give you a ride if your driving looks reckless, for whatever reason.
Envision an America where anyone can start any kind of business and better their financial situation by providing goods or services to willing buyers. Envision paying small amounts for information about reputable businesses rather than paying huge taxes for regulation that may or may not protect you from an unscrupulous business.
Envision an America with the kind of health system it used to have when doctors could still afford to make house calls. Imagine a system where doctors spend their time healing rather than filing out paperwork and are paid based on their expertise and reputation. Envision an America where individuals can get exactly the kind and amount of health insurance they want because insurance companies compete for business.
Envision an America where parents can choose the kind and amount of education they think is best for their children, based on the needs and abilities of each child. Envision an America where people get to keep all the money they earn and decide for themselves how much to spend for education, healthcare, protection, charity, etc. Envision a free America.
- CaptA, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11To Libberkey,
- rlpartridge, on 10/12/2007, -6/+17Thomas Jefferson once said that the Tree of Liberty needed to be refreshed with blood every twenty years. It seems to be a little overdue.
- stimcaps, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8Big talk. I see this on Digg every day.
- forcedfx, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10You first, I'll follow.
- labmouse42, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3It's easy.
Just make sure that it's not your blood. :D - fyngyrz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9The tree of liberty is dead. It was killed by being ***** on by millions upon millions of sheep, trampled by elephants and donkeys, and finally being sold to the highest bidder as pulp for King George's proclamations by that lady with the blindfold and one tit hanging out.
- shanedog, on 10/12/2007, -14/+9Stop spamming with stuff from mises...
- trejrco, on 10/12/2007, -13/+7I'll second that, as well as second jav1231's comments below - the FairTax is not perfect, but it most certainly would be a marked improvement over what we have now!
- jav1231, on 10/12/2007, -9/+17Taxation should always be limited. That was the design. We've gotten things way out of hand. The FairTax is about the best thing out there. Why are people so quick to slam it in favor of the status quo? Politicians slam it because it means a change from the system they have now that keeps the money coming in. I'm all for the Fair Tax. I'd like to see the rate be well below 23%, but the reason that number was put out there was to mitigate its detractors. It's the mean percentage that keeps income for the government at essentially what it is now.
Yes it would be nice to fund the government on other taxes but we can all agree what we have now sucks. The FT is at least a change and a change that taxes everyone. No longer will such a small percentage of people be footing the bill for the majority.- dstrube, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2I'm sorry jav1231. I meant to click thumbs up but accidentally clicked thumbs down :(
- p0s3r, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2Why do you think he cares?
- Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4"No longer will such a small percentage of people be footing the bill for the majority."
I don't see any problem with a small percentage of people footing the bill for the majority if those small percentage of people are *still* better off at the end of the day. "Oh no, they'll only be 10x richer than everyone else instead of 11x richer! What a disaster for them!" - Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15@Bioshocker: that's because you're a communist. You believe in forced redistribution of wealth and that the government is best suited to do that.
Armed robbery is what it is. - Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3Me thinks you have no idea what Communist is other than "word I use in an attempt to discredit what someone says without having to actually argue against their points". There is nothing Communist in what I wrote. Try again.
- Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11No I actually had to read your comments before I determined you believed redistribution of wealth was an acceptable use of force. To me that's communism. Sorry if it's insulting but stop supporting robbers.
- Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1"To me that's communism."
I don't care what it means to you. I don't find it insulting. I just don't think you can arbitrarily redefine words in order to claim their emotional impact without having to fulfil their meaning requirements.
You don't see me saying "Oh your views are murderist. To me, having zero tax is murder." because in no way is that consistent with the meaning of the word murder. But yet you've done pretty much the equivalent.
I recommend you look up the definition of communism. It's believing that there is no such thing as property rights. If you look at my post, you will find that is inconsistent with what I said. Just because I don't support your idea of "full" property rights, that doesn't mean I support *no* property rights. That is binary thinking on an analogue concept. The way you have defined it, everyone who disagrees with you is a "communist". - joybran, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8@ jav1231
"Why are people so quick to slam it in favor of the status quo?"
Because, bad as the present system is, the "Fair Tax" would be worse. It would be easier to increase the rate; it would be harder to avoid; and it would put every American on the dole. - Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5If you don't have full property rights, you don't have any. You only have the amount the bureaucrats let you have, so that's the same as saying it's actually the bureaucrat's property but he lets you keep some.
- Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Oh and just to prove my point:
"The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called "ownership" is only by virtue of Government, i.e., law, amounting to mere user; and that use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State." Senate Resolution #62, from April 1933.
So, you think you have ANY property rights?
- vietvet, on 10/12/2007, -10/+14This article pairs "fair tax screws ordinary people" with "all taxes are unfair." I agree with the former, not the latter.
People do have common interests -- roads, the environment, health and safety [and the common defense is part of that].- kingpin2k, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10The common interests of people must be enforced under threat of imprisonment? If we're so commonly interested, would we not support those things in which we're all interested voluntarily. Often, rather, it is the majority who use government as a tool to coerce the unwilling individual into supporting their interests.
- foamweapons, on 10/12/2007, -10/+8Yeah, of course a fair tax is completely ridiculous, but this guy says "The IRS should be gotten rid of, not renamed." Then... what is he proposing would replace the collection of taxes? Of course government is corrupt, but I guess I don't know what the Libertarian plan is after ridding the government of corruption? How would a capitalist society work that has no collection of taxes?
Obviously, firefighters, police, jails, schools etc. need money, so how do they get paid? Privatization? So you're saying if you don't have money, your house will burn down, your kids can't go to school and the police won't protect you? What about if your legs get chopped off in a work accident, do you get disability from somewhere, or how do you make your employer pay for negligence? Who pays for the courts? What about companies that own the infrastructure for things like the electrical grid or the phone lines? What will prevent them from inflating prices because they have a monopoly? Who decides to break up a monopoly if we have no government because no one pays the government for employees? How the heck does a capitalist society work without taxes? - Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5"So you're saying if you don't have money, your house will burn down, your kids can't go to school and the police won't protect you?"
Basically, yes, that is what they are saying. Libertarianism is 100% individualist, 0% society-minded. They don't care about you or your standard of living, what they care about is that they will be better off without taxes. Taking money from them involuntarily to pay for services for other people is, in their minds, theft. The assumption is that the needs of those not well off enough to survive in their brave new world, will be met by charity and charitable donations. - ohearn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@Bioshocker: You are taking an extreme view of Libertarians. Someone who believes in 100% individual and 0% society is an anarchist, not a libertarian. Personally I would however, be happy with much smaller government than we have, and while i don't agree with some strict libertarians on everything I think they want to move us in the right direction. We just have to be sure not to go to far.
- joybran, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@ foamweapons
"What about companies that own the infrastructure for things like the electrical grid or the phone lines? What will prevent them from inflating prices because they have a monopoly? Who decides to break up a monopoly if we have no government because no one pays the government for employees? How the heck does a capitalist society work without taxes?"
Monopolies cannot exist without government force. There is no way to maintain a monopoly unless you have a government that can pass laws to keep out competition. A free society can work much better than one with a government because everything is voluntary. Everybody only pays for the services they want and use. - joybran, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10@ Bioshocker
""So you're saying if you don't have money, your house will burn down, your kids can't go to school and the police won't protect you?"
Basically, yes, that is what they are saying. Libertarianism is 100% individualist, 0% society-minded. They don't care about you or your standard of living, what they care about is that they will be better off without taxes. Taking money from them involuntarily to pay for services for other people is, in their minds, theft. The assumption is that the needs of those not well off enough to survive in their brave new world, will be met by charity and charitable donations."
That is not what we are saying at all. I am the most extreme libertarian, an individualist anarchist. What we are saying is that freedom is the best thing for society. Killing, enslaving, and robbing individuals is NEVER good for society, no matter how much our rulers want us to believe it is.
Government is what causes poverty. It is what drains all the wealth from society to feed itself and its minions who prop it up. It uses fear to convince people that they could not survive without it. Without government interference into relationships between individuals, we would all be so much better off that poverty would be a thing of the past.
Without government, anyone who is willing to work would be able to find work and would be able to keep all the money he earned. There will always be a tiny minority of people who are so physically or mentally disabled they can't do any kind of productive work, but technology makes that number smaller all the time. With the wealth possible in a free society, the need for charity would be negligible. That's why we are so sure that charity would be able to take care of those few people.
The problem with freedom is that it doesn't allow lazy people to live off the work of others. Freedom means responsibility, and the people who currently live off government handouts of one kind or another would have to go to work. They are the biggest opponents of freedom, and there are an awful lot of them. - Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"Someone who believes in 100% individual and 0% society is an anarchist, not a libertarian."
Both distinctions are false (i.e., the one between "individual" and "society", and the one between "anarchist" and "libertarian")
- jbus, on 10/12/2007, -18/+7Another example of why these wacky Libertarians shouldn't have a roll in our government. They don't care if the entire country is crumbling to pieces around them, they are happy as long as they don't have to pay taxes.
- missflibbles, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5We don't care if there's bread in the government or not.
- Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8BTW the right-wing fanatics in the GOP and the communists in the Democrats are worse. You shouldn't vote for any of these crazy bastards.
On the other hand, Libertarians have ideas that you just don't get yet. It would be better to vote for them than communists or fundamentalists. - Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -13/+2"Libertarians have ideas that you just don't get yet."
Libertarians have ideas that just plain haven't been tested yet. A hundred years ago, Communism sounded mighty appealing on paper. But in practise, it turned out to be ***** retarded, simply because the on-paper model of the world was full of assumptions and simplifications that didn't hold up to the complexities of reality. I've yet to see anything to suggest Libertarianism would turn out any different. - Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12That's because Communism is based on FORCE, while Libertarianism is based on VOLUNTARY INTERACTION.
Force doesn't produce desirable results. Voluntary interactions do.
***** I learned that at 4 years old. - Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2You know, I really have no objection to you guys buying up a plot of land and setting up your country like that. Free State Project of whatever it is. I think you should have the right to do that. But sooner or later, if you guys are really hoping to advance your goals through democratic means within America/wherever, you are going to have to accept that you won't win 100% of people round, so you will be using force to achieve your political goals.
PS Force isn't the only flaw in Communism, and that difference isn't the only thing that will determine Libertarianism's success in transferring from theory to reality where it failed.
- 1053r, on 10/12/2007, -13/+4The major problem with the "fairtax" is not that allows the government to keep spending at the current level (as the article suggests). The major problem is that sales taxes are disproportionately burdensome to the poor. Consider:
Person A) Makes $24,000 a year and supports a family of 4. Every $ coming in goes right back out again (and is taxed under the "fairtax" scheme).
Person B) Makes $240,000 a year and is single. About $80,000 a year is spent on this person's upper class lifestyle and the rest is tax free.
The fairest tax is an "asset" tax. That is, if you own things that are worth money, you pay some small percentage of what they are worth every year. If you own nothing, you pay nothing. However, given that this would be nearly impossible to calculate, the next fairest tax is a simple graduated income tax. You take the number of people the income is supporting and divide it up evenly among them. Then you put a nice smooth curve on it such that people living hand to mouth pay basically nothing, and people making $10,000,000 a year pay over 90%. There is no such thing as deductions, or tax shelters, or anything. Just a simple equation. This solves both the waste that the IRS puts us through and also funds the federal government (which is probably overfunded, but that is a matter for another discussion).- kingpin2k, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12You are fundamentally incorrect. The fairtax contains a mechanism of "prebating" the amount of expected taxes spent on necessities to every household. This removes any federal tax obligation from poorer people. The end result is that the example "A" you cite would pay less tax under the fairtax (because of no Social Security/Medicare tax) than they do now.
- MaynardsTool, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14The fairest tax is not an asset tax. It is not fair to have to pay RENT to the government. If you buy a house, you own that house. End of story. Your system leads to things like 85 year-old widdows being kicked out of their homes by the government because they can't afford to pay the personal property tax on the house that they paid off 50 years ago. (By the way, that's exactly what happened to my neighbor three months ago...and she's been living with us since, because she has no family left.)
The FairTax would give that first family a pre-bate which would cover literally all of their taxes. The Pre-Bate is an anually adjusted amount of money paid to every family in America based solely on their family's size. The idea is to pay the taxes on the things people have to have. Basically it brings everyone up to the poverty line, and only spending above the poverty line is taxed.
Family A would be able to take that pre-bate and save it, because they would be keeping 33% more of their paycheck every month, and everything they would be buying would be 22% cheaper!
Don't be ignorant. - limeaid, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Your leaving out the prebate formula for the $24,000 family of four - remember they do get a check every month (as everyone) based upon size of family and the poverty line (what is it about $18,000 I think) - so that family would get a check of over $400 every month which would probably cover the taxes they spent for the month.
- dotjerky, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6Right, because someone who makes $240,000 uses the roads more than 10x as much as someone who makes $24,000.
Right, because millionaires wouldn't bother to use tax shelters to save themselves hundreds of thousands of dollars. - dontspamjay, on 10/12/2007, -3/+71053r: Socialist... 90% on people who make millioins.... That is income re-distribution. Take the rich people's money and re-distribute it among the masses... smooth...
- ctyank22, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1I suppose you're a rabid underachiever!
90% tax?!? Why Income? Income can come in spurts, consumption is regular & predictable. - Zythryn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I disagree, a tax on assets would be extremely unfair. The most fair tax would be a tax on what you spend WITH a few exceptions.
The flat sales tax would be excluded from food and medical services but NOT from resteraunts. Educational services could be excluded as well.
The rich (who buy lots of things) would pay more than the poor that do not.
I agree that the government spends way too much and that needs to be reigned in no matter the form of the taxes. - joybran, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@ Zythryn
"The flat sales tax would be excluded from food and medical services but NOT from resteraunts. Educational services could be excluded as well."
You are absolutely right. If this were a legitimate plan to improve the tax system, it would exclude basic necessities the same way state sales taxes do. But if they exclude necessities from the tax, they won't be able to put every American on the dole. This whole "Fair Tax" thing is about increasing government control over every aspect of every American's life.
- dwriv, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12OK...has anyone read Boortz's book? Are we just spitting forth headlines and articles designed to increase circulation vs. debate an issue? I have read the book, and it is more about molding peoples behavior. Yes, it will get people to save more and spend less, it will get people to realize JUST HOW MUCH THE GOVERNMENT GETS. Now, most only pay attention to their "take home." What a load of crap that is. The Fair Tax is like a Truth in Advertising law. Now we will realize every time we buy something. Then maybe "da masses" will start to revolt at taxation. The government and politicians know what they are doing and love the "take home effect." There is only one way to pry the cash from their fingers, and that is to do something drastic that gets the American public to sit up and say...wait a second, I gave more to the government this month then I payed on my mortgage...what the hell did I get for all that money? 5+ Different agencies who all felt the other was responsible so they do nothing when the biggest, most devastating hurricane hits in years. And even now, no one will take responsibility because they all had such a small stake, that no one is responsible. What a bunch of jerks... I say we give the Fair Tax a chance. At least it will give the power addicts in Washington a moment of fear, who knows, maybe some of them will enter a 12 step program.
- MaynardsTool, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14He is right about a lot of things in the article, but his one main flaw is that he takes issue with both the tax system, and our government's extravagent expenditures. The government is still going to be spending a lot more money as it is, the current system does nothing to remedy that.
The thing that he really leaves out, however, is the influx of capital that would result from the United States becoming, over night, the world's largest tax shelter. Think about it, if people (read: corporations and the extremely rich) didn't have to pay taxes on the money that they keep/invest in this country, then at least a good portion of the $11 trillion-ish kept in offshore accounts would come flooding back in. This influx of capital would drive down interest rates, making it cheaper and easier for people/businesses to get money, and to invest it in their futures.
The second thing he leaves out is all of the companies that would return the the United States. In Europe that have what's called a Value Added Tax (VAT). This tax basically means that whenever value is added to a product, at each step of production, that increase in value is taxed. That leads to a much higher rate of taxation than the FairTax would lead to if the product were sold in America. More importantly, however, as the FairTax is a sales tax only, if that product were exported and sold elsewhere, the company would not have to worry about paying taxes in America at all, meaning that they created a bunch of jobs, bought a bunch of materials, and built factories in America that they would not have otherwise.
Finally think about it this way. The Harvard study showed that replacing the current tax system (all of it) would require about a 23% sales tax (that rate is exclusive, and so would correlate to the 30% that the article cites). Each time you look at your pay stub there is around 33-40% already taken out. So basically, you would be getting 33-40% more money with each paycheck, and paying 23% sales tax (inclusive) on products that are on average 22% cheaper.
At the very least the FairTax is a better idea than the current system, one that virtually erases avoidance, and one that thankfully spurrs economic growth. I do agree with the author though that government spending is out of control, and that if any solution is ever going to work in the long term something has to be done to curtail it.- limeaid, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I'm in total agreement with getting rid of the current system - I would rather get taxed on what I spend - not what I make - Think of the those who already have money and have no need for a job (Paris Hilton) probably shows zero income and pays less taxes than me.
Another thing I want to make sure happens is get rid of the IRS - dontspamjay, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4MaynardsTool... well said
- limeaid, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I'm in total agreement with getting rid of the current system - I would rather get taxed on what I spend - not what I make - Think of the those who already have money and have no need for a job (Paris Hilton) probably shows zero income and pays less taxes than me.
- stimcaps, on 10/12/2007, -12/+7My biggest problem with the so-called "FairTax" is that it turns every single American citizen into a welfare recipient, dependent on their monthly government check in order to get by. To see libertarians supporting this kind of travesty is pathetic.
- limeaid, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9How does it turn me into a welfare recipient?
Not sure where you're going with this one - I wouldn't be relying on the few hundred bucks the gov was sending to get by - MaynardsTool, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8You have a point there, but the counterpoint is painfully obvious...the current system is much, much worse. It's the lesser of two evils, either you pay taxes on what you buy, or you pay taxes on what you own. With the first system you are being taxed at a fair rate to pay for the things that you use, and to provide for the national defense. With the second system you are paying rent to the government for the things you own, and paying taxes on the money that you are investing to retire on...which will invariably be taxed yet again when you take it out...and again by the state when you spend it.
One tax, or three? - fyngyrz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5That's a poorly thought out assertion. Looks like your biggest problem will have to be something else. Because:
The "prebate" is the estimated amount the taxpayer will spend anyway; it is based on necessities. There is little you can do to get out of such spending, save that you decide you'll never wipe your ass again, stop eating, turn off your water, etc. In other words, this is money you're going to pay via the coming year's consumption tax anyway -- so it is *your money* you're getting in the prebate, not *someone else's money* (someone else's money is what welfare is -- no ifs, ands, or buts.)
There is a huge difference between moving your own money around, and taking someone else's money, to survive.
Now, if your argument is applied to someone with no income, that's something else -- it is indeed welfare-ish; and that will depend on how charitable the government is with regard to hangers-on, just as it does now. But that isn't what you claimed... you said that "every citizen" would be a welfare recipient, and clearly, that is not the case. Only the usual minority would be.
For the record, I only support the fairtax because it makes taxes visible, and allows the taxpayer to control when they pay the most taxes. That means, for instance, that during government outrages (like the Iraq war) I can live like a miser and so withdraw much of my support for the government. When the government decides to provide universal healthcare or build safer roads, I can spend like a sonofabitch and feel all warm and fuzzy about it. - joybran, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@ fyngyrz
"The "prebate" is the estimated amount the taxpayer will spend anyway; it is based on necessities. There is little you can do to get out of such spending, save that you decide you'll never wipe your ass again, stop eating, turn off your water, etc. In other words, this is money you're going to pay via the coming year's consumption tax anyway -- so it is *your money* you're getting in the prebate, not *someone else's money* (someone else's money is what welfare is -- no ifs, ands, or buts.)"
It is not your money if you have to give your name and address to the government and wait for them to send you a check. That makes you a welfare recipient and the fact that you have to get money that way in order to avoid paying 30% taxes on the things you absolutely can't avoid buying makes you a prize sucker. What a great way to control anyone who voices the slightest disagreement with our rulers. Just withhold their monthly check. - fyngyrz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@joybran: "It is not your money if you have to give your name and address to the government and wait for them to send you a check. That makes you a welfare recipient and the fact that you have to get money that way in order to avoid paying 30% taxes on the things you absolutely can't avoid buying makes you a prize sucker. What a great way to control anyone who voices the slightest disagreement with our rulers. Just withhold their monthly check."
The opportunity to withhold is there, certainly, but at this point in time it is a bugaboo; the opportunity to fine the individual is there as well, and no one is talking about that, either. The plan is to prebate everyone, there are no conditions or penalties. I'll go with that, rather than imagine ways it can be misused.
Look: I am a libertarian. Not quite as extreme as you are, but not that far off, either. But what you and I want is not going to come to pass from where we stand today. People do not see things the way we do, and we can discuss it until we're blue in the face, and they'll still come out the other side thinking what they thought in the first place. Look at all the blindness you faced here in the messages you replied to. And these are moderately clever people. We can play the blame game -- intelligence, lack of education, lack of vision, indoctrination -- but that won't change anything either, other than to annoy the pig, as the saying goes. The FT seems just barely viable in terms of being made to come to pass, and as such, is an opportunity to possibly -- not certainly, but possibly -- reduce the complexities of the taxation system by a considerable amount. That serves my purpose, as it puts the cost of government in the citizen's face every time they buy anything. There is a side effect I mentioned elsewhere that I like as well; it allows citizens to be miserly when the government is particularly out of line (ie, the Iraq war) and spendy if they do something right (ie, forbid taking people's property.) It makes taxes into a functional feedback mechanism, which I see as a very good thing, certainly as compared to where we are now.
Coming back to libertarianism and further: I can't buck everything on the earth that isn't 100% compliant with my beliefs as to what would be better for everyone. I don't have that kind of power. So if I see a chink in the wall, I stick a crowbar in it.
When I was 16 and had just finished proving I wasn't nearly as clever as I thought I was, my father told me that society is like an old, thick stone wall. If you insist on running into it head-on, you'll only break your head. Hit it hard enough, and stones from high up will rain down on you and crush you, to boot. But if you walk up to it, and examine it without battering yourself against it and trying to make it unstable, you will find the stones are uneven, there are cracks, and every one of them is an opportunity. You can use them to climb or even go over the wall if you're clever and have some luck. But running into the wall just won't work.
The FT is a potential crack. Supporting it serves as a metaphorical crowbar. I'm just quietly pulling on it to see if I can make that crack into a reality. Might be some sunshine on the other side. - joybran, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@ fyngyrz
I have agreed with you on every other topic where I have seen your comments, but on this subject I could not disagree more strongly. I have many reasons for believing the Fair Tax Bill would not accomplish what libertarians hope from it, but the reason for my loathing of the Bill is my conviction that accepting money from the government in any form for any reason is the most harmful thing a person can do to their own character.
All money that the government has is stolen money, whether stolen through taxes or stolen through inflation or stolen by forcing people to buy unwanted, over-priced "services" from government monopolies. I think we all know, on some level, that accepting stolen money is immoral. When we accept money from the government, we have to justify it to maintain our self-esteem. There are plenty of rationalizations we can use. It's my money anyway because I paid in to SS, unemployment, worker's comp (whatever). I'm just getting back some that was stolen from me. I earned it by serving in the military (or some other government job that pays a pension for the rest of your life).
I don't blame anyone for using those justifications, but I know it creates a dependence on government that is more than financial. I have seen it change people from responsible to irresponsible or from proudly independent to somehow shameful. For myself, I would rather starve than take money from government, so I must admit the idea of having to pay a 30% tax on my food and necessities gives me a greater aversion to the Fair Tax Bill than most might feel.
When I look at what the income tax refund has done to our national character, I am convinced that giving every American a small monthly check would totally destroy any chance we have of ever being free. The vast majority of Americans don't notice the taxes listed on their pay stubs. They just feel grateful for getting that nice check from their benevolent government once a year. How could anyone support our current tax system unless they were secretly thinking about that tax refund check?
If the FT ever goes through, the vast majority of Americans are not going to notice the tax amount at the bottom of their sales receipt. They are going to feel grateful for the $400 check they get every month from their benevolent government. They will probably mob anyone who suggests they should give up receiving that check in exchange for not paying sales tax, no matter how much more money the abolition of the sales tax would save them.
You don't have to threaten to withhold the check or threaten to levy a fine. Just knowing that the government has their name and address and COULD come after them would be enough for most people to avoid speaking out against any government action, no matter how despotic or immoral. I think there is a possibility the FT could pass if more politicians start realizing how much more control it would give them over the populace. - fyngyrz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@joybran: "All money that the government has is stolen money, whether stolen through taxes or stolen through inflation or stolen by forcing people to buy unwanted, over-priced "services" from government monopolies."
Ok. Here's how I see it. Under the FT, the government will be mugging me for, say, $300.00 each month. This is a certainty. If I accept a $300.00 check from them at the beginning of each month, I am accepting *my own money back* and I do not find this to be ethically bankrupt.
If a mugger takes my watch, he has stolen it. It is stolen property. If I accept it back, I am not ethically bankrupt -- it is *my* watch!
If the government takes $300 from me, it has stolen it. It is stolen property. If I accept it back, I am not ethically bankrupt -- it is *my* money!
Your scenario seems a little confused to me; perhaps you are thinking that when you get that money back, you're accepting someone *else's* stolen property. Not so. It's yours. The mugger's just having the rather odd habit of giving it to you before he steals it, that's all. I mean, don't worry -- he's going to steal a lot more from you, and he's already mugged you before for a lot more money and you won't get *that* back, but at least you'll get this fraction.
Please explain to me, if possible, where I have this wrong, or else tell me if you've changed your stand, and why / why not. - joybran, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"Your scenario seems a little confused to me; perhaps you are thinking that when you get that money back, you're accepting someone *else's* stolen property. Not so. It's yours. The mugger's just having the rather odd habit of giving it to you before he steals it, that's all. I mean, don't worry -- he's going to steal a lot more from you, and he's already mugged you before for a lot more money and you won't get *that* back, but at least you'll get this fraction."
Money is fungible. If you get your watch back, you know it is YOUR watch and nobody else's. You can't know that with money. The mugger may have spent your money and what you are getting back is someone else's money. Another difference is that, if you get your watch back (or even money back) from a mugger, it is restitution for the crime of stealing from you. It is not a "rebate" or "prebate" that the mugger is generous enough to give you. It isn't an odd habit; it's an attempt to convince you that the mugger isn't really stealing from you.
But that really isn't the most important consideration. As I said, I understand the justification for trying to get some of your stolen money back. The real problem is that you are accepting money from a thief on the condition that you don't object to his theft. You can't accept that monthly check and then say the sales tax is theft, even though it is. Government survives on the sanction of the victim. You have to remove that sanction, and you can't do it by accepting hush money, even if that hush money was originally stolen from you. - fyngyrz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Money is fungible. If you get your watch back, you know it is YOUR watch and nobody else's. You can't know that with money."
Using this reasoning, if a robber comes down the street, and robs you, and then robs me, puts it all in one bag, then you won't be able to get your money back when the robber is caught because you don't know "which money is yours." Such a position is absurd.
Money is an abstract; it represents an accumulation of works and services and gifts that you own and can exchange for concrete instances of the same. When you put it in a bank, invest it in a company, even loan some to a friend, the particular bills you "own" remain irrelevant, the issue is what you are entitled to -- and nothing else. When you get "your" investment back, you are certain to receive a different set of bills than you put in; yet you have in no way been ethically or morally compromised because the whole process is one of managing an abstract in the first place. Money is only relevant with regard to magnitude; not by serial number or some fold you put on a corner of a note.
Because of this, if the government takes $300 and gives $300 from a particular individual on a short term basis such as a month as we are discussing here, the abstract representation of that individual's worth has not changed in any manner worth considering, certainly not in any manner that is ethically or morally significant.
Therefore, I think your argument is specious; I certainly appreciate your inclination to be independent from the government's takings, but I think you're a little confused about the actual role of money. You need to re-think this.
- limeaid, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9How does it turn me into a welfare recipient?
- KingBelly, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5Same tax, different smell.
- limeaid, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3The flat tax sounds great - I'm all for it - but you're going to have a hard sell (as in your example) the $10,000 a year person. The $1,000,000, $100,000 would more than gladly pay 10 percent.
- dontspamjay, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9If you are completely against all taxes. Close public schools, close all the roads, and fire all the policemen, firemen and other public workers.
You can't be completely against taxes... they pay the national bills we need to survive. I do, however, agree that taxes are way too high and that spending has gone through the roof (from both parties and almost all congressmen).
I think the FairTax is more fair than our current system because although it is designed to neither increase or decrease federal funds, it is a more fair system. The fact that you get taxed on what you willingly choose to spend vs. every penny you make (current income tax) makes it more fair. I could go on for awhile, but I think something needs to be done with the current system. It's extremely hard on businesses (which effects the lives of all americans) and is increasingly difficult to comply with.
I would reccomend the FairTax Book. They admit, it isn't perfect (we all agree that taxes can't be perfect), but scores of economists say it's better than what we have. Texas and Florida already use this system and raise plenty of state revenue and have extremely competitive economies (they don't have a state income tax, but a state sales tax).
I can respect others' educated opinions though.- AntiMe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Federal taxes should only be a few things... National defense, interstate highways, mediation of interstate commerce, I think that's it. Any other services should be funded at a local or state level. Police/fire should be from property taxes, as the more valuable your property, the more you have to lose. Education should be from state taxes, distributed to each county based on the number of students. I can't see any huge reason for other taxes offhand, but I might have missed something. I'd also like the 10th amendment back someday.
- fyngyrz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6AntiMe:
When you say "interstate highways" you're touching on an idea that should be expanded, I think.
Highways are important because they enable commerce.
In a similar vein, I am of the opinion communications (phone, vision, network) should be given the same level of importance and support (federal) as they are absolutely critical to the functioning of the national economy, and they transcend borders by their very nature. If you think about it, these are all "transport" issues; highways transport goods, communications transport data, decisions, funding and so forth.
If every citizen was certain they could call the hospital when they fell ill or were injured, that wouldn't be a terrible thing, either. Communications seems to me to have assumed such importance in the current economy that it should probably be a basic right, as speech was seen a couple of centuries ago. - Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"If you are completely against all taxes. Close public schools, close all the roads, and fire all the policemen, firemen and other public workers."
Doesn't follow. Just because those people aren't employed by the state doesn't mean they won't exist. Read the article I posted a few hours ago: http://digg.com/politics/Rolling_Back_Government_Lessons_from_New_Zealand
Here's a quote: "When we started this process with the Department of Transportation, it had 5,600 employees. When we finished, it had 53. When we started with the Forest Service, it had 17,000 employees. When we finished, it had 17. When we applied it to the Ministry of Works, it had 28,000 employees. I used to be Minister of Works, and ended up being the only employee." [...] "And if you say to me, “But you killed all those jobs!” – well, that’s just not true. The government stopped employing people in those jobs, but the need for the jobs didn’t disappear."
- Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -9/+8This FairTax scheme looks like a scam.
How much you wanna bet you'll still have all your old taxes PLUS the "Fair" tax.
You people are just asking to be ass-raped. - scottc, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11"The twin truths that taxation is theft..."
How can you take this article seriously after a statement that begins like that? Our society has decided that this is how we pay for things that we all need. It isn't analogous to theft in any way.
If you want to argue about the relative merits of different kinds of taxes, or about completely different ways to pay for the things we need, or even to argue against government as a whole, go ahead. But it has nothing to do with theft.- fyngyrz, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9"Our society" didn't decide any such thing. These taxes were imposed by congress, and congress is *not* "our society", congress is, at best, the people that were selected from an artificially limited pool of candidates by those few people who voted, which is always considerably less than the full set of people who *actually* make up "our society." Specific example, I have *never* voted for any of these representatives, nor would I, as I consider them criminal in the extreme; therefore, I have no representation in the government whatsoever. Many other people are in the same position.
- scottc, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7@fyngyrz
Yes, it did. Taxes didn't just happen overnight by an edict from a king. Even if you didn't participate in the decisions, thousands of people before you did and millions of us benefit from them. Sorry that you don't like the outcome. Be thankful that you live in a country where you do have some degree of participation, and more power to you if you do try to change the current system. It needs to be changed, but not because of the silly argument that taxes=theft. - fyngyrz, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8That is utter nonsense. If you force me to do things I do not agree with, you are using coercion. This is not a "social" force. This is violence, an ANTI-social force. If I do not pay (for the Iraq war or homeland "security", for instance), I will be punished, jailed, my assets taken, etc. This is theft indeed, and theft with gun-in-the-face violence, in other words considerably more equivalent to an outright mugging than a stealthy burglary. I have absolutely no input to the system in that the only viable, electable candidates will continue to support the system of theft and so I cannot, in conscience, vote for them.
The day I can earmark my taxes for the departments that are allowed to spend them will be the day I pay them willingly. Not one day sooner. Given the ability to choose, I will pay for roads (I do, gas taxes), I will pay for schools, I will pay for space exploration, I will pay for environmental care, I will pay for a military to the extent that I will pay for every citizen to have infantry weapons in the closet and undergo basic militia training and no more (we have NO need OR justification to attack countries outside our borders), I will pay for medical and scientific research, I will not pay (taxes) for charity to entities outside our borders though I may well elect to fund some charities of my own choosing directly, I will not pay for religion and superstition, and I will not pay for "federal" police forces -- the states can handle everything. Etc. In this way, all my taxes can be collected in proportion to everyone else, and I will know I am not funding stupidity. Collectively, the country will ACTUALLY decide what it wants to pay for, and the government will have to deal with it instead of endlessly re-inventing the pork du jour.
- gsally, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6One thing the author got wrong:
"How would workers no longer paying taxes on wages lead to a fall in prices? Workers currently have deductions from their paychecks for federal income tax, Social Security tax, and Medicare tax. Although employers remit these taxes to the federal government, the money does not come out of their profits — it comes out of each employee's gross pay"
Besides some taxes are "paid" by the employer and don't appear on the stub (like social security) most people calculate thier pay from a take home perspective. That is, they quickly discount the amount by anticipated taxes as the "real wage" they're being paid. So if your employer pays you 100K, you automatically translate that into ~75K of purchasing power, as the rest is taken by the tax man.
The big problem is that most people don't understand that in an economy, there's only one pool of money. It doesn't matter where you take money out of the pool, the level is lower after the fact. Having people think that there's a lot of small segments (net/goss pay, business taxes, luxury taxes, use taxes, taxes for "rich" people, taxes on certain types of income) obscures that fact and makes it easier from a political standpoint to enact taxes. With this handy redirection, people don't realize they're swimming in lower water as a result of taxing somebody else. For that reason, a complicated tax system serves a purpose, so I don't see it going away anytime soon. - axiomflash, on 10/12/2007, -14/+3you people are ***** retarded
- Altotus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11I think the current system simply has to be scrapped. I'm not sold on the "Fair Tax". I'd rather have a very simple system of fiscal transaction taxes. Here in the US, we need to fill out tax forms and attempt to comply with hundreds of volumes of tax law which are filled with actuarial jargon. They are confusing, frequently open to interpretation, and honestly not fully known or understood to anyone. The system offers all sorts of obscure loop-holes, and puts the burden of accounting for it all on the individual that can't possibly know that they are complying with it.
Personally, I got a letter from the IRS last year saying that I failed to claim about $200,000 in taxable income. I've never made that much money in my life. It took the better part of two days to formulate a response, copy the documentation, rebut each of the 37 "items" on the list. In the end, I got a "sorry, our mistake, you were actually off by just $25, however that is enough to require you to pay under the the alternative minimum tax, so we're reducing your standard deduction, please pay us $1000 plus interest and penalties". WTF?
In other countries, taxes are transaction-based. They are taken out by the party managing the transaction (such as the employer, or the stock broker) and are done on a flat rate. You get a receipt and a number to call if you think there's an error. That's it. No forms, no overt activity on the part of the individual, no huge bureaucracy, no graduated system, no audits...
I would agree, that its absolutely ludicrous that we should accept the level of spending we do now, and I would favor a HUGE cut-back in taxation across the board. We spend egregious amounts at the federal level not only on pork, but other "nice to have" things which ought never be paid for by ursury of the general public who never benefits from them. - p0s3r, on 10/12/2007, -14/+3I wonder if the dickfaces that keep spamming digg with this mises/lewrockwell crap think that this will get them on ballots?
- foobar5892, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2What's "backpeddling"? Is that like trying to peddle items back to the peddler you bought them from?
- fyngyrz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1You've never ridden a bicycle without coaster brakes, then?
- fyngyrz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1You've never ridden a bicycle without coaster brakes, then?
- labmouse42, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I wish that our senators would have the imagination to create a test environment to see how the fair tax would work. After all, it corporations have been using test labs before rolling out changes for years now.
How difficult would it be to test this in a city, or county? Set up a fair tax to see how it exactly affects the economy of the area. That would end a lot of dispute over the price inflation.- ohearn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5There are a couple states that already use a similar system. Florida does and I think Texas might as well. They have NO, repeat NO state income tax, and get all thier revenue from slaes taxes.
- ohearn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Conveniently enough something similar to the Fairtax would also relieve a lot of the complaints people have on illegal immigration issues. Current the undocumented immigrants are not paying taxes into the system, under the Fairtax (or any other national sales tax) anyone who buys products on US soil pays taxes. This also includes international travelers, visitors or tourists from other countries that are currently not helping to pay any of the taxes for this country as well.
Also this system has the benefit of being simple to understand any does not have to calculate multiple tax brackets and all the otehr overburdened mess in the current tax system. - DrDigg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Florida can get away without an income tax because they have so many tourists and they raise so much money from property taxes.
- unclejemima, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1From the headline I thought this was going to be regarding income tax.
- Balthazar3n, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I'm so sick of these tax philosophies. Taxes have to be practical, first, foremost, and I don't think any philosophy can matter much. Money is always how much and when, anything else is nonsense.
- Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1How about a tax on wealth? Oh no, we can't be having that, the rich might have to pay their fair share. Sales tax, income tax, these are all targeted toward making working class people pay the most. Since the rich own property by the grace of our government's protections, they should be required to make their wealth work for the economy. If they can't make their money benefit the public, they should not be entrusted with its management, and taxation is just the mechanism to take it back from them. Watching their wealth slip away is a major spur for them to invest so that they don't lose it.
- Nation, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5with the fairtax ... the wealthy would do one of these three:
1. pay more taxes because they purcahse more
2. put their money at risk and create jobs and such for other people.
3. loose money due to inflation
If they do one or two, then society bennifits ... and they are not likely to do #3.
You really should read the fairtax book and some books about economics. It is clear you don't understand money.
One more thing ... how much of your money do you give away? How much of it do you want someone else to force you to give away? - CaptA, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Hello Urusai,
You state: How about a tax on wealth? Oh no, we can't be having that, the rich might have to pay their fair share.
*********
There comes a point when two things happen when you attack wealth.
1. Wealth will flee, leaving for the greatest equitable venue providing safety, return and freedom to invest (tax haven). You push, capital will leave.
2. Employ force, (export controls etc.) and wealth will still find a way to leave. It always has and always will. The most powerful governments have never been able to stop this! France is finding this out now.
Finally, to an individual that has earned wealth lawfully, no matter how much, it is to covet or envy and then sanction through redistribution under the guise of just law, a tax or otherwise. Every country that has employed this tactic has ultimately driven vast sums of wealth from its boarders. Rich countries will become poorer. (Even America) Even the OECD is learning the hard way -- trying to create a world equal in taxes. It will fail. Truth be told, there's just too much history to support what I am saying. Charles Adams has spent a lifetime writing about this. You may find his "Flight from Taxes" a good read.
Again, and again, I always repeat: government is nothing but force. (George Washington) When people turn to government to solve their problems, the ultimate result is mediocrity. This comes from the only employable solution that government can enlist without massive revolutions taking place: compromise! In a democracy this will send everyone home with "something." And mediocrity is "something" that can't be advanced and usually can't be fired! It just continues to exist ... And then desperation...
It is wise to be careful what one wishes for. For sometimes we don't get what we want but we usually always get what we deserve. Economic myopes always pay dear.
As an aside I've included information on the income tax and who really pays what! The top 1% pay more than 36.89% of the total income tax in America. The top 5%, paying
57.13% of the total income tax!! Never let it be said that the "rich" don't pay their share!
Hogwash to suggest anything else like and including the Fair Tax as a solution. It is still part of the problem, a slow growing cancer that will consume its victims that turn to its dismal stead. No brag, just fact.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html
Lots of action on this article!!
The very best to you.
- Nation, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5with the fairtax ... the wealthy would do one of these three:
- DrDigg, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4So we all pay less taxes, but the gov't still collects enough money to survive. I don't see how that equation works.
The only way the "fairtax" works is if you significantly reduce the size of gov't, by more than a few billion by getting rid of the IRS.- Nation, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7you should read the book, because I am not going to do this justice, but here is my attempt:
1. acctually, it does not say that everyone will pay less ... it says that most will pay the same, and some will pay more (see #2).
2. not everyone will pay less taxes, here are some people who will pay more:
- tourists to this country - tourism is a major business
- black & grey markets - people who currently have no "income" but make money and spend money in the economy. This includes the drug industry, prostitution, and anything else that is cash based.
- the rich - since they spend more, they are taxed more
I am sure there are more, but I am trying to make this quick
3. there will be no taxes up to the poverty line spending - that's the prebate, everyone recieves money at the beginning of the month that would be equil to the taxes up to the poverty line.
4. the equasion is basically like this:
you bring home all your money + your tax rate (14%-35%)
Cost of goods go down + average is like 22%
net tax - starts at 23%
Net result is roughly the products cost the same amount, but you get all your paycheck.
5. USA - "The *NEW* Place to Invest" - the book does a great job explaining this, but basically there is a lot of money that will come to the USA in the form of investment ... that investment will be risked to create companies, products, services. Causeing a higher standard of living for the average US citizen, more Jobs, and cheaper money to borrow (lower interest rates on loans).
Really, go read the book. It is rather short and well worth it. - fyngyrz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3No, we don't all pay less taxes. Above the poverty line, we pay according to consumption; high rollers will pay more (and likely not notice it or care), and people in the mid-levels have options opening up -- they can pay more (consume more) or they can save and consume later, which incidentally provides a means to meter your funding of the government, which is a huge benefit all by itself. Also, this exposes the tax rate -- it is in front of your nose, each and every purchase, so you think about how much of an ass-raping the government is giving you currently. No more hiding down-level taxes in what are "apparently" retail prices. If an incumbent wants to be re-elected, they'd better think twice about raising that rate. Better if they think about *reducing* spending. I'd vote to re-elect someone in a heartbeat if they did that. Also, black markets and other hidden economies will being paying in on par levels. Also, no more accountants, no more free riders who get out of taxes because they're tax-law-savvy or simply not paying what the government says they "owe", considerably less tax law, no more having to come up with huge sums of money once a year (it is ALWAYS better to collect taxes steadily and slowly as compared to a yearly ass ***** sans lube.)
Look what they've done now. We can't even tell what we pay in taxes; The government is so far in debt (trillions of dollars!) that our money is "meaningful" only because the population is manifestly ignorant; We are paying for "services" that take our rights and crush them... we surely need a change, and a fiscal change is something that gets right at the roots of government, because as we have all come to learn, they don't do things for our benefit, they do them based on money, money, money. - DrDigg, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2I will go ahead and read the book, but I think these arguements take some big assumptions.
BTW there is no way that the rich will pay more taxes
"- the rich - since they spend more, they are taxed more"
There is no way that people who are paying 40% or more on there current earnings are going to spend enough to offset that. That is why the rich are in support of this this change. The money that they make is going to go less into buying stuff and more
- Nation, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7you should read the book, because I am not going to do this justice, but here is my attempt: