Fair Tax

[Grizalltheway]

There's the rub. If you think the goverment should only spend a fraction of what it currently does, that's fine. But expecting a family of four with a household income of say 60k to pay the same dollar amount (44k) as one that makes 250k+ just isn't realistic.

What's the $44k? Is that everyones share of hte National Debt? The more realistic number would be those with jobs that have the ability to pay. With about 119 million FT employees as of July 2014, that number is closer to $147,000.

I was using the number FU threw out in my example.

[AZGrizFan]

John, sorry to pile on as it looks like you're fighting a losing battle here, but a couple of additional questions:

1) Please define "productivity" especially as it applies to various income levels.

2) From which moral code do you define progressive taxation as "evil"?

He's a straight (supposedly), white, property-owning male. His whole life is a losing battle.

God you're an idiot.

[CID1990]

Unless that business is a perceived "conservative" business....

Show me one email from the IRS that proves this

show us Lois Lerner's hard drive

[OL FU]

There's the rub. If you think the goverment should only spend a fraction of what it currently does, that's fine. But expecting a family of four with a household income of say 60k to pay the same dollar amount (44k) as one that makes 250k+ just isn't realistic.

What's the $44k? Is that everyones share of hte National Debt? The more realistic number would be those with jobs that have the ability to pay. With about 119 million FT employees as of July 2014, that number is closer to $147,000.

The $44,000 is $3.7T divided by 320M X 4.

JOS didn't say people had the ability to pay. He said per person

[houndawg]

Show me one email from the IRS that proves this

show us Lois Lerner's hard drive

translation: "He got nuthin..!"

[Ibanez]

Show me one email from the IRS that proves this

show us Lois Lerner's hard drive

I wrote that on my phone and couldn't put in a smiley.

[Ibanez]

What's the $44k? Is that everyones share of hte National Debt? The more realistic number would be those with jobs that have the ability to pay. With about 119 million FT employees as of July 2014, that number is closer to $147,000.

The $44,000 is $3.7T divided by 320M X 4.

JOS didn't say people had the ability to pay. He said per person

Which is even more ludicrous. Good luck getting 9 yr olds and those in prison to pay up.

[Ibanez]

Show me one email from the IRS that proves this

show us Lois Lerner's hard drive

I'm sure the info is some where. With Raid storage, it's probably in 2 or 3 places at least.

[JohnStOnge]

After writing this, I went back and re-read your comments a little closer and realized that your opinion is so out of touch with reality I shouldn't have even responded

I'm not out of touch with reality with respect to what is fair at all. If you have two people renting an apartment as room mates, for example, what is fair is for each of them to pay half the rent. They each pay half the cost of living in the apartment. If you have 300 million people living in a country and there is a need to charge each of them for living there, what is fair is to divide the cost by 300 million and charge each person 1/300 millionth of the cost.

That is fair. That's each person who lives in this country paying an equal sure for living here.

The idea of charging one person more money for something because they make more money is not fair. It's just not. It's not fair to charge one person millions of dollars for living in the United States while you charge another person nothing.

Now, if you were to say that I would be out of touch with reality if I think the United States would ever implement a fair tax whereby everyone would pay their share you would be right. But I don't think that. The People have been too imbedded by the idea that the fact that someone makes more means they should pay more. It's a false idea. But it's what most people think.

[houndawg]

After writing this, I went back and re-read your comments a little closer and realized that your opinion is so out of touch with reality I shouldn't have even responded

I'm not out of touch with reality with respect to what is fair at all. If you have two people renting an apartment as room mates, for example, what is fair is for each of them to pay half the rent. They each pay half the cost of living in the apartment. If you have 300 million people living in a country and there is a need to charge each of them for living there, what is fair is to divide the cost by 300 million and charge each person 1/300 millionth of the cost.

That is fair. That's each person who lives in this country paying an equal sure for living here.

The idea of charging one person more money for something because they make more money is not fair. It's just not. It's not fair to charge one person millions of dollars for living in the United States while you charge another person nothing.

Now, if you were to say that I would be out of touch with reality if I think the United States would ever implement a fair tax whereby everyone would pay their share you would be right. But I don't think that. The People have been too imbedded by the idea that the fact that someone makes more means they should pay more. It's a false idea. But it's what most people think.

Nonsense, John. How can you possibly be so clueless?

The two people live in very different United States. A first class ticket cost more than a bunk next to the coal bin.

[Ibanez]

After writing this, I went back and re-read your comments a little closer and realized that your opinion is so out of touch with reality I shouldn't have even responded

I'm not out of touch with reality with respect to what is fair at all. If you have two people renting an apartment as room mates, for example, what is fair is for each of them to pay half the rent. They each pay half the cost of living in the apartment. If you have 300 million people living in a country and there is a need to charge each of them for living there, what is fair is to divide the cost by 300 million and charge each person 1/300 millionth of the cost.

That is fair. That's each person who lives in this country paying an equal sure for living here.

The idea of charging one person more money for something because they make more money is not fair. It's just not. It's not fair to charge one person millions of dollars for living in the United States while you charge another person nothing.

Now, if you were to say that I would be out of touch with reality if I think the United States would ever implement a fair tax whereby everyone would pay their share you would be right. But I don't think that. The People have been too imbedded by the idea that the fact that someone makes more means they should pay more. It's a false idea. But it's what most people think.

Please tell me how my 1 week old nephew will pay his share? Or does his share just grow until he starts working? I hardly call that fair.

I don't think the rich should always pay more. But I don't believe we should load every taxpayer with $100k or more in debt in some fantasy idea of "fairness."

[kalm]

After writing this, I went back and re-read your comments a little closer and realized that your opinion is so out of touch with reality I shouldn't have even responded

I'm not out of touch with reality with respect to what is fair at all. If you have two people renting an apartment as room mates, for example, what is fair is for each of them to pay half the rent. They each pay half the cost of living in the apartment. If you have 300 million people living in a country and there is a need to charge each of them for living there, what is fair is to divide the cost by 300 million and charge each person 1/300 millionth of the cost.

That is fair. That's each person who lives in this country paying an equal sure for living here.

The idea of charging one person more money for something because they make more money is not fair. It's just not. It's not fair to charge one person millions of dollars for living in the United States while you charge another person nothing.

Now, if you were to say that I would be out of touch with reality if I think the United States would ever implement a fair tax whereby everyone would pay their share you would be right. But I don't think that. The People have been too imbedded by the idea that the fact that someone makes more means they should pay more. It's a false idea. But it's what most people think.

So you must be in favor of a 100% estate tax. Since you're into fair and all...

[OL FU]

After writing this, I went back and re-read your comments a little closer and realized that your opinion is so out of touch with reality I shouldn't have even responded

I'm not out of touch with reality with respect to what is fair at all. If you have two people renting an apartment as room mates, for example, what is fair is for each of them to pay half the rent. They each pay half the cost of living in the apartment. If you have 300 million people living in a country and there is a need to charge each of them for living there, what is fair is to divide the cost by 300 million and charge each person 1/300 millionth of the cost.

That is fair. That's each person who lives in this country paying an equal sure for living here.

The idea of charging one person more money for something because they make more money is not fair. It's just not. It's not fair to charge one person millions of dollars for living in the United States while you charge another person nothing.

Now, if you were to say that I would be out of touch with reality if I think the United States would ever implement a fair tax whereby everyone would pay their share you would be right. But I don't think that. The People have been too imbedded by the idea that the fact that someone makes more means they should pay more. It's a false idea. But it's what most people think.

I won't argue fairness since that is like beauty in the eye of the beholder. But I will argue reality. There is no way in today's world even if you shrink the US and states governments to the smallest practical level, taxation on the basis of which you speak, would ever be workable. Sorry, it isn't simply a matter of mindset. And if we ever tried it, that would be the day I would start digging my tunnel to hide from the riots.

[windwalker]

edit: It's been a while since I read about the Fair Tax. 23% tax on new goods and services. Hm. Still, everyone paying the same rate, isn't exactly fair. Those with more disposable income will end up paying more taxes by virtue of buying more things and things with higher price tags.


Didn't JSO say that wasn't fair?

The real key to what the 1 percenters will pay vs. the average family will pay is the 23% on NEW goods.
If you buy a new car, then you pay the 23%, if you buy a used car you pay 0%. The very rich buys things that most of us only dream about... a big boat.. a new jet.. expensive jewelry etc.
Therefore, the rich would pay much more of the taxes than the middle or low income families.

[UNI88]

After writing this, I went back and re-read your comments a little closer and realized that your opinion is so out of touch with reality I shouldn't have even responded

I'm not out of touch with reality with respect to what is fair at all. If you have two people renting an apartment as room mates, for example, what is fair is for each of them to pay half the rent. They each pay half the cost of living in the apartment. If you have 300 million people living in a country and there is a need to charge each of them for living there, what is fair is to divide the cost by 300 million and charge each person 1/300 millionth of the cost.

That is fair. That's each person who lives in this country paying an equal sure for living here.

The idea of charging one person more money for something because they make more money is not fair. It's just not. It's not fair to charge one person millions of dollars for living in the United States while you charge another person nothing.

Now, if you were to say that I would be out of touch with reality if I think the United States would ever implement a fair tax whereby everyone would pay their share you would be right. But I don't think that. The People have been too imbedded by the idea that the fact that someone makes more means they should pay more. It's a false idea. But it's what most people think.

John, it's not that simple. I'll make your analogy a little more complicated (but still not nearly as complicated as life actually is). What if you have 3 people living in a 2 bedroom apartment. Person A in in 1 bedroom and Persons B & C share the remaining bedroom. Should they each pay 1/3 of the rent? No, person A has their own bedroom while Persons B &C share. Should Person A pay 1/2 of the rent? No, they each have the opportunity to get equal use/value out of the living area and kitchen.

[OL FU]

edit: It's been a while since I read about the Fair Tax. 23% tax on new goods and services. Hm. Still, everyone paying the same rate, isn't exactly fair. Those with more disposable income will end up paying more taxes by virtue of buying more things and things with higher price tags.


Didn't JSO say that wasn't fair?

The real key to what the 1 percenters will pay vs. the average family will pay is the 23% on NEW goods.
If you buy a new car, then you pay the 23%, if you buy a used car you pay 0%. The very rich buys things that most of us only dream about... a big boat.. a new jet.. expensive jewelry etc.
Therefore, the rich would pay much more of the taxes than the middle or low income families.

Yes upper income individuals will pay more of the taxes just like they do right now. But they will pay a smaller percentage of their income than the middle class because they will use a smaller percentage of their income for consumption.

[Ibanez]

edit: It's been a while since I read about the Fair Tax. 23% tax on new goods and services. Hm. Still, everyone paying the same rate, isn't exactly fair. Those with more disposable income will end up paying more taxes by virtue of buying more things and things with higher price tags.


Didn't JSO say that wasn't fair?

The real key to what the 1 percenters will pay vs. the average family will pay is the 23% on NEW goods.
If you buy a new car, then you pay the 23%, if you buy a used car you pay 0%. The very rich buys things that most of us only dream about... a big boat.. a new jet.. expensive jewelry etc.
Therefore, the rich would pay much more of the taxes than the middle or low income families.

Yup.

[JohnStOnge]

1) The answer to the question on children is that, if there were a truly fair tax the parents would be responsible for their shares. For example:

In Federal FY 2012 there were $3.537 trillion in Federal Outlays. There are an estimated 319 million people in the United States now so let's just assume there were 310 million at the end of FY 2012. So an equal share for each person would be about $11,400. A two parent, two child household would be responsible for $45,600. Of course most four person households wouldn't be too pleased with the prospect of having to pay that. It'd mean they'd get a taste of what it costs to have the government we have. And that's the point.

That is what fair would be. It's not possible because of the "can't squeeze blood out of a turnip" principle. Some households and/or people don't have incomes. But each person bearing an equal share of the cost of supporting the government is the "fair" ideal.

2) I've seen a few arguments that are, to me, variations of the idea that "those who benefit more should pay more." But nobody benefits any more than anybody else does by virtue of living in this country. What they're benefiting from are other factors.

For example: One person is born with a 140 IQ and displays a good work ethic. Another person is born with an 85 IQ and a lazy nature. The 140 IQ person ends up being a highly successful billionaire attorney. The 85 IQ person ends up having trouble holding jobs and homeless. That's not because one person "benefitted more" from having been born in the United States in the other one did.

And that's also true of factor of being born into a rich family as opposed to being born into a poor family. Yes you have an advantage if you're born into a rich family. But what you benefited from is having been born into a rich family. It's not because being born in the United State benefited one person more than it did another person. It's not "fair" to charge one person more for living in the United States because that one is better off than another one. The situation does not fit, for instance, the analogy of one of three room mates having a room to himself in a rent house while the other two share a room. It's more like each has a room but one goes out and buys a flat screen TV and puts it in his room. He shouldn't have to pay more in rent because he made more of his personal space than the others did. The people who have more in this country, for the most part, paid for it and/or earned it. That or someone in their family who came before them did.

[JohnStOnge]

From the site:



If a tax is "progressive" it's not fair. It's not a Fair Tax. It's the same old same old of hitching the wagon to the productive so the unproductive can get a free or nearly free ride.

Get rid of the "probate" part and it gets closer to fair. Still not fair because truly fair would be looking at how much is needed in revenue, dividing it by the number of people in the country, and having each person pay their equal share. But it'd be closer.

Making someone pay more because they make more money is not fair. Never has been. Never will be.

John, sorry to pile on as it looks like you're fighting a losing battle here, but a couple of additional questions:

1) Please define "productivity" especially as it applies to various income levels.

2) From which moral code do you define progressive taxation as "evil"?

Been meaning to get back to this one. In the post to which you were responding "the productive" are those who contribute something close to or above their share of the cost of running the country. You've seen what I mean by "their share of the cost of running the country."

The question about moral codes is a good one. I supposed it's just the assumed common understanding. That's a paradox because there seems to be a "common understanding" that progressive taxation is fair. But what I'm talking about is that the common understanding seems to change when it comes to taxation. I don't think, for example, that anybody would suggest that movie theaters check patrons incomes and establish a "progressive" rate schedule based on income where one person would pay $10,000 to see the show while another pays $.50 or even nothing. But for some reason when it comes to taxation people see something like that as "fair."

Just as a practical matter progressive taxation is corrosive because, as I said, it creates a situation in which people voting for politicians who will develop public policy and spending plans do not experience the "pain" of paying for what results. One would expect that kind of system to result in wild acceleration in government spending and that's what's happened.

[Ibanez]

John, sorry to pile on as it looks like you're fighting a losing battle here, but a couple of additional questions:

1) Please define "productivity" especially as it applies to various income levels.

2) From which moral code do you define progressive taxation as "evil"?

Been meaning to get back to this one. In the post to which you were responding "the productive" are those who contribute something close to or above their share of the cost of running the country. You've seen what I mean by "their share of the cost of running the country."

The question about moral codes is a good one. I supposed it's just the assumed common understanding. That's a paradox because there seems to be a "common understanding" that progressive taxation is fair. But what I'm talking about is that the common understanding seems to change when it comes to taxation. I don't think, for example, that anybody would suggest that movie theaters check patrons incomes and establish a "progressive" rate schedule based on income where one person would pay $10,000 to see the show while another pays $.50 or even nothing. But for some reason when it comes to taxation people see something like that as "fair."

Just as a practical matter progressive taxation is corrosive because, as I said, it creates a situation in which people voting for politicians who will develop public policy and spending plans do not experience the "pain" of paying for what results. One would expect that kind of system to result in wild acceleration in government spending and that's what's happened.

Buying a movie ticket does not equal paying taxes.

But this overall post has been nothing but

[Ibanez]

1) The answer to the question on children is that, if there were a truly fair tax the parents would be responsible for their shares. For example:

In Federal FY 2012 there were $3.537 trillion in Federal Outlays. There are an estimated 319 million people in the United States now so let's just assume there were 310 million at the end of FY 2012. So an equal share for each person would be about $11,400. A two parent, two child household would be responsible for $45,600. Of course most four person households wouldn't be too pleased with the prospect of having to pay that. It'd mean they'd get a taste of what it costs to have the government we have. And that's the point.

That is what fair would be. It's not possible because of the "can't squeeze blood out of a turnip" principle. Some households and/or people don't have incomes. But each person bearing an equal share of the cost of supporting the government is the "fair" ideal.

2) I've seen a few arguments that are, to me, variations of the idea that "those who benefit more should pay more." But nobody benefits any more than anybody else does by virtue of living in this country. What they're benefiting from are other factors.

For example: One person is born with a 140 IQ and displays a good work ethic. Another person is born with an 85 IQ and a lazy nature. The 140 IQ person ends up being a highly successful billionaire attorney. The 85 IQ person ends up having trouble holding jobs and homeless. That's not because one person "benefitted more" from having been born in the United States in the other one did.

And that's also true of factor of being born into a rich family as opposed to being born into a poor family. Yes you have an advantage if you're born into a rich family. But what you benefited from is having been born into a rich family. It's not because being born in the United State benefited one person more than it did another person. It's not "fair" to charge one person more for living in the United States because that one is better off than another one. The situation does not fit, for instance, the analogy of one of three room mates having a room to himself in a rent house while the other two share a room. It's more like each has a room but one goes out and buys a flat screen TV and puts it in his room. He shouldn't have to pay more in rent because he made more of his personal space than the others did. The people who have more in this country, for the most part, paid for it and/or earned it. That or someone in their family who came before them did.

So...you're for a fair tax even though you admit you can't get blood from a turnip? And you want to give everyone, a massive debt that would only cripple their opportunities and increase their struggles? That isn't really fair.


Nothing is fair. Someone, somewhere, will get a raw deal.

[kalm]

1) The answer to the question on children is that, if there were a truly fair tax the parents would be responsible for their shares. For example:

In Federal FY 2012 there were $3.537 trillion in Federal Outlays. There are an estimated 319 million people in the United States now so let's just assume there were 310 million at the end of FY 2012. So an equal share for each person would be about $11,400. A two parent, two child household would be responsible for $45,600. Of course most four person households wouldn't be too pleased with the prospect of having to pay that. It'd mean they'd get a taste of what it costs to have the government we have. And that's the point.

That is what fair would be. It's not possible because of the "can't squeeze blood out of a turnip" principle. Some households and/or people don't have incomes. But each person bearing an equal share of the cost of supporting the government is the "fair" ideal.

2) I've seen a few arguments that are, to me, variations of the idea that "those who benefit more should pay more." But nobody benefits any more than anybody else does by virtue of living in this country. What they're benefiting from are other factors.

For example: One person is born with a 140 IQ and displays a good work ethic. Another person is born with an 85 IQ and a lazy nature. The 140 IQ person ends up being a highly successful billionaire attorney. The 85 IQ person ends up having trouble holding jobs and homeless. That's not because one person "benefitted more" from having been born in the United States in the other one did.

And that's also true of factor of being born into a rich family as opposed to being born into a poor family. Yes you have an advantage if you're born into a rich family. But what you benefited from is having been born into a rich family. It's not because being born in the United State benefited one person more than it did another person. It's not "fair" to charge one person more for living in the United States because that one is better off than another one. The situation does not fit, for instance, the analogy of one of three room mates having a room to himself in a rent house while the other two share a room. It's more like each has a room but one goes out and buys a flat screen TV and puts it in his room. He shouldn't have to pay more in rent because he made more of his personal space than the others did. The people who have more in this country, for the most part, paid for it and/or earned it. That or someone in their family who came before them did.

So...you're for a fair tax even though you admit you can't get blood from a turnip? And you want to give everyone, a massive debt that would only cripple their opportunities and increase their struggles? That isn't really fair.


Nothing is fair. Someone, somewhere, will get a raw deal.

And the people getting the raw deal are those making the most money.

[Ibanez]

So...you're for a fair tax even though you admit you can't get blood from a turnip? And you want to give everyone, a massive debt that would only cripple their opportunities and increase their struggles? That isn't really fair.


Nothing is fair. Someone, somewhere, will get a raw deal.

And the people getting the raw deal are those making the most money.

In the "fair" tax scenario? Yes, they are. You will never make taxes truly fair.

[JohnStOnge]

So...you're for a fair tax even though you admit you can't get blood from a turnip? And you want to give everyone, a massive debt that would only cripple their opportunities and increase their struggles? That isn't really fair.

The massive debt potential came from the process of continuing to increase the scope of government while insulating most people from experiencing the cost of doing that. There is no way to just cut the spigot off cold turkey. But we COULD start moving away from this paradigm in which we keep increasing the scope of government while expecting taxing the hell out of "the rich" and borrowing to cover it. We could, theoretically, decide that "progressive" taxation is not really a good idea and start trying to transition away from it.

We won't. But we could.

[kalm]

John, sorry to pile on as it looks like you're fighting a losing battle here, but a couple of additional questions:

1) Please define "productivity" especially as it applies to various income levels.

2) From which moral code do you define progressive taxation as "evil"?

Been meaning to get back to this one. In the post to which you were responding "the productive" are those who contribute something close to or above their share of the cost of running the country. You've seen what I mean by "their share of the cost of running the country."

The question about moral codes is a good one. I supposed it's just the assumed common understanding. That's a paradox because there seems to be a "common understanding" that progressive taxation is fair. But what I'm talking about is that the common understanding seems to change when it comes to taxation. I don't think, for example, that anybody would suggest that movie theaters check patrons incomes and establish a "progressive" rate schedule based on income where one person would pay $10,000 to see the show while another pays $.50 or even nothing. But for some reason when it comes to taxation people see something like that as "fair."

Just as a practical matter progressive taxation is corrosive because, as I said, it creates a situation in which people voting for politicians who will develop public policy and spending plans do not experience the "pain" of paying for what results. One would expect that kind of system to result in wild acceleration in government spending and that's what's happened.

But under a "fair" system as you suggest, why shouldn't productivity and income be defined simply as how much you work…what you produce? In your "fair" system, is an IRS accountant, a hedge fund manager, or a trust fund child producing any more for the economy than the ditch digger?

From a moral standpoint what is the root of "common understanding"? Progressive taxation may have brought us an out of control government and over-spending on social programs, but it also allowed for a whole shit ton of really wealthy people. Do they think it's "unfair" that they were forced to succeed under such "unfair" circumstances". Would they and the country have been better off with less millionaires and billionaires, and less of a social safety net?

Didn't the bible say to "aspire to live quietly, and to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands, as we instructed you, so that you may walk properly before outsiders and be dependent on no one." ? Wouldn't it be nice to live in a system where more people could actually do that…while paying their fair share?