Liberal free for all coming to an end

[transjen]

So how does this do away with the IRS? some one still needs to collect the tax plus issue refunds checks
Like i said it sounds nice until you sit down and really think it out
And under this system you'll be paying that high tax on every single car payment so a stanard 5 year car loan means you will pay that high tax 60 times on your new car
no thanks

[Suckslut]

First off, I never said this would do away with the IRS. What it would do is cut it by about 90% and do away with filing income taxes for about 90% of people. Plus it would eliminate all the headaches associated with different tax rates for different kinds of income (wages, rent, long term capital gains, social security, deductions, loopholes, etc).

The IRS would only have to look at forms filed by businesses in the US (say 3 million) as opposed to forms filed by almost every single citizen over 18 (say 200 million)

Second of all, you are assuming everything will be 30% more expensive than it is now. That is not true. Income taxes are already figured in to company's margins and expenses. If I'm selling a product and I want to make a $1000 profit and the taxes are 33%, I'm going to sell it for $1500 (assuming other costs are $0, which they aren't, buy I'm trying to keep this simple). Now, with a fair tax at 33% and I want to make a $1000 profit, I could sell it for $1000 (again assuming costs are $0) and the customer pays the 33% tax for a total of $1,333.


I don't trust Republicans either, but I do like this proposal. In fact Mike Gavel, former Democrat Senator for Alaska is for this.

[smc]

Originally Posted by Suckslut

First off, I never said this would do away with the IRS. What it would do is cut it by about 90% and do away with filing income taxes for about 90% of people. Plus it would eliminate all the headaches associated with different tax rates for different kinds of income (wages, rent, long term capital gains, social security, deductions, loopholes, etc).

The IRS would only have to look at forms filed by businesses in the US (say 3 million) as opposed to forms filed by almost every single citizen over 18 (say 200 million)

Second of all, you are assuming everything will be 30% more expensive than it is now. That is not true. Income taxes are already figured in to company's margins and expenses. If I'm selling a product and I want to make a $1000 profit and the taxes are 33%, I'm going to sell it for $1500 (assuming other costs are $0, which they aren't, buy I'm trying to keep this simple). Now, with a fair tax at 33% and I want to make a $1000 profit, I could sell it for $1000 (again assuming costs are $0) and the customer pays the 33% tax for a total of $1,333.


I don't trust Republicans either, but I do like this proposal. In fact Mike Gavel, former Democrat Senator for Alaska is for this.

Taking your points in reverse order.

1. The fact that a Democrat is for this doesn't matter one wit to me. I do not support any politicians of the Republocrat Party.

2. I think you are being na?ve about prices to consumers. Businesses exist to maximize profits. Without some "fair tax"-related price controls, there is nothing to stop a business from continuing to charge the same as before. Sure, so-called "market forces" may result in adjustments of the sort you describe, but while you may be willing to rely on the market, I think we've had enough experience to known that there is no guarantee of the market adjusting in favor of consumers. (And I'm being kind to the market by only saying that.)

3. More to the point about prices, your construct seems flawed. Are you saying that the seller (i.e., a corporation) will no longer pay a tax? Seems to be what you wrote.

Most important, your proposal would replace a progressive tax (income) with a regressive tax. The solution is to fix the progressive taxation by making the wealthy pay more, not impose yet another hardship on working people. To be honest, you sound like the very thing you claim not to trust.

[Suckslut]

A corporation would pay the fair tax on the goods and services it buys, but not on the profits. Profits would go to the shareholders, managers, employees, tax free. Just like how an employee's salary and wages will be tax free. Everyone would only pay a tax when they buy things.

Smc, I think that a truly free market would resolve prices, but we haven't had a truly free market for a long time. Big companies get regulation passed so small companies can't compete and even conservative republicans can't vote to eliminate oil subsidies or jets for billionaires.

I wouldn't be opposed to a progressive fair tax. Purchases under $1,000 pay 10% tax, under $10,000 but over $1,000, 20% etc. If need be you could make exceptions for houses and cars, which most people need.

But this could turn into a luxury tax. You want to purchase a $5 million home, go right ahead. You'll pay a 50% tax on it, or whatever.

[smc]

Originally Posted by Suckslut

A corporation would pay the fair tax on the goods and services it buys, but not on the profits. Profits would go to the shareholders, managers, employees, tax free. Just like how an employee's salary and wages will be tax free. Everyone would only pay a tax when they buy things.

Smc, I think that a truly free market would resolve prices, but we haven't had a truly free market for a long time. Big companies get regulation passed so small companies can't compete and even conservative republicans can't vote to eliminate oil subsidies or jets for billionaires.

I wouldn't be opposed to a progressive fair tax. Purchases under $1,000 pay 10% tax, under $10,000 but over $1,000, 20% etc. If need be you could make exceptions for houses and cars, which most people need.

But this could turn into a luxury tax. You want to purchase a $5 million home, go right ahead. You'll pay a 50% tax on it, or whatever.

I genuinely admire your commitment to this concept, and I especially value your willingness to have a real discussion about it without any of the hyperbolic bullshit and made-up "facts" that are so often posted here.

Unfortunately, where we differ goes far beyond the merits of the "fair tax" idea. The notion that one can create a "fair" version of a system that is fundamentally based on exploitation is, frankly, ridiculous.

[randolph]

Hey, why don't we tax sex!
A buck a fuck could bring in tons of cash.
Collecting it could be a problem, however.

[Suckslut]

Originally Posted by randolph

Hey, why don't we tax sex!
A buck a fuck could bring in tons of cash.
Collecting it could be a problem, however.

Prostitution should be legal.

[smc]

Originally Posted by randolph

Hey, why don't we tax sex!
A buck a fuck could bring in tons of cash.
Collecting it could be a problem, however.

Well, I guess this kind of post in the middle of a serious discussion is better than hyperbolic xenophobia.

[Suckslut]

Originally Posted by smc

I genuinely admire your commitment to this concept, and I especially value your willingness to have a real discussion about it without any of the hyperbolic bullshit and made-up "facts" that are so often posted here.

Unfortunately, where we differ goes far beyond the merits of the "fair tax" idea. The notion that one can create a "fair" version of a system that is fundamentally based on exploitation is, frankly, ridiculous.

Think of the fair tax, or the progressive fair tax, as a consumption tax. The more you consume, the more in taxes you pay.

From a business point of view, the more you consume (products you make), the more in taxes your customers pay.

[smc]

Originally Posted by Suckslut

Think of the fair tax, or the progressive fair tax, as a consumption tax. The more you consume, the more in taxes you pay.

From a business point of view, the more you consume (products you make), the more in taxes your customers pay.

Your response ignores the primary point I made: the system of exploitation is the problem, and all solutions that do not fundamentally eliminate the system that is based on exploitation are pipe dreams. Nevertheless, I will address the points you do make.

All consumption taxes shift the burden of taxation to the poor. Even with the rebate of which you wrote earlier accounted for, thus making it hypothetically a "progressive" tax on consumption, you fail to see how it would be regressive. It is simple arithmetic that consumption falls as a percentage of income as the income level increases. Thus, high-income people would have a lower tax burden under the consumption tax.

Further, consider how the system of exploitation figures into this in one straightforward example. In the Boston suburb where I live, good-quality produce -- healthy, clean, etc. -- is readily available at any number of grocery stores near my home. In the poor neighborhoods of the city, crappy produce is sometimes available at convenience stores; there are very few actual grocery stores. The good produce at my area stores is less expensive than the crap that poor folks can buy near their homes. I have a car; many of them rely on inadequate public transportation.

So, I can buy a clean, organically grown head of lettuce for $2.99 at Whole Foods. They can buy a plastic-wrapped, shitty looking head of iceberg lettuce for $3.50 at the corner "market," or travel on the bus for a half hour to a grocery store that has a slightly better head of lettuce for $2.99 (not as good as the one near me). Add the $1.25 bus fare each way, and that lettuce cost $5.49. On top of this, you would have that person pay a 30% tax.

Progressive? Give me a break.