The "If Things Went Your Way" Game
#31
I dont see why we insist on lending money to countries who cant afford to pay it back.
and in ohio there is no licensing cost unless its for conceal and carry permit. rifles and shotguns are not even registered with the state, so they basically have no clue whats out there
and in ohio there is no licensing cost unless its for conceal and carry permit. rifles and shotguns are not even registered with the state, so they basically have no clue whats out there
I would be if the government had that information. It is none of their business. And I fear the government coming in and taking control of my life, property, and liberties far more than any single man with a .38 special.
http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspi...e_fairtax.html
Sorry bro, but the facts don't agree with you.
How much do you really know about the Fairtax? Even factoring in the prebate, it's an enormously regressive tax. Only extreme right wing think tanks argue otherwise.
Sorry bro, but the facts don't agree with you.
How much do you really know about the Fairtax? Even factoring in the prebate, it's an enormously regressive tax. Only extreme right wing think tanks argue otherwise.
I read THE book. Yes, the whole effing thing. Maybe you should, too.
And from the very article that you linked:
It is easy to look at charts like the one above and dismiss the FairTax as simply another way to help the rich get richer. But there is an economic argument for a less progressive tax system, though that argument is extremely technical. Kotlikoff has asserted that the FairTax will lower the marginal tax rate for all earners. (The marginal rate is the tax rate paid on the last dollar earned.) Because marginal rates are lower, each extra dollar of income will result in greater purchasing power. The decrease in marginal rates is progressive – that is, marginal rate reductions are greater for the working- and middle-classes than for the wealthy.
Moreover, even FairTax critics like Gale agree that consumption taxes increase the size of the economy. Many studies show that long-term incomes would rise under a consumption-based tax system. Optimistic accounts show a 10 percent rise in income over time, but even the more cautious studies show gains of 5 percent to 7 percent. Because the FairTax will grow the economy, workers will eventually see increases in their income. FairTax proponents claim that the growing economy, coupled with the reduction in marginal tax rates, will offset the increased tax burden. Burton argues that "the FairTax is a positive-sum game," one in which purchasing power will grow faster than the tax burden.
Moreover, even FairTax critics like Gale agree that consumption taxes increase the size of the economy. Many studies show that long-term incomes would rise under a consumption-based tax system. Optimistic accounts show a 10 percent rise in income over time, but even the more cautious studies show gains of 5 percent to 7 percent. Because the FairTax will grow the economy, workers will eventually see increases in their income. FairTax proponents claim that the growing economy, coupled with the reduction in marginal tax rates, will offset the increased tax burden. Burton argues that "the FairTax is a positive-sum game," one in which purchasing power will grow faster than the tax burden.
And since the factcheck.org folks used "the bipartisan President’s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform" as their primary anti-Fair Tax source for data, I'd say there is quite a bit to worry about regarding their assessment. When they are hand-picked by Obama to look into the Fair Tax, you think you will get the truth? When they are all influence peddling members of congress paid heavily by lobbyists to enact favorable tax codes and "loopholes" do you think they would be likely to derail the gravy train?
#32
Economist William G. Gale at the Brookings Institution writes: "Under the AFT proposal, taxes would rise for households in the bottom 90% of the income distribution, while households in the top 1% would receive an average tax cut of over $75,000." Gale continues, "If households are classified by consumption level, a somewhat different pattern emerges. Households in the bottom two-thirds of the distribution would pay less than currently, households in the top third would pay more."[24] While Gale's analysis differed from the FairTax legislation,[22] he is referring to absolute tax money—ranked by income, households at the lower end of the distribution will tend to pay more in absolute taxes, while households at the higher end will tend to pay less in absolute taxes. Ranked by spending or consumption, households that currently spend less on consumption would pay less total taxes, while households that currently spend more would pay more. For example, a family of four (a couple with two children) earning about $25,000 and spending this on taxable goods and services, would consume 100% of their income. A higher income family of four making about $100,000, spending $75,000, and saving $25,000, would consume only 75% of their income on taxable goods and services. When presented with an estimated effective tax rate, the low-income family above would pay a tax rate of 0% on the 100% of consumption and the higher income family would pay a tax rate of 15% on the 75% of consumption (with the other 25% taxed at a later point in time). A person spending at the poverty level would have an effective tax rate of 0%, whereas someone spending at four times the poverty level would have an effective tax rate of 17.2%.[25]
These conclusions are contradictory according to Gale. The FairTax proposal is regressive on income (using a cross-section time frame) and progressive on sales.[22]
These conclusions are contradictory according to Gale. The FairTax proposal is regressive on income (using a cross-section time frame) and progressive on sales.[22]
Even in the absolute best case, the "FairTax" can only be a completely neutral tax, minus the so-called "prebate" (Which has not even existed in some FairTax proposals, and in even the proposals that include it has been so small as to only effectively nullify the first ~8k you make. This is why those making 12k and less pay slightly less taxes than they do now, but everyone above that up to the top 90% pay nearly as much to flat out more) But, the more of a % of your income you need to spend just to live, the more regressive the tax is for you. That's simple math, and the reality of the world we live in.
The FairTax is completely designed to shift more of the tax burden on the middle class. That's all there is to it. You can run around and scream "But it's not like that, I PROMISE!" But, you know what? Not a single economist or other similar authoritative source that is not affiliated with the FairTax agrees with you. I mean, for gods sakes man, you are claiming books written by the FairTax's primary supporters is a ------- unbiased source while bitching about a goddamn bipartisan committee that is unaffiliated with it!
Last edited by blaen99; 01-25-2012 at 04:58 PM.
#33
#34
Eat the government.
Anarchy is not a dirty word.
If we're gonna dream brothers and sisters, dream of the end as we know it, for what we have created and continue to feed will surely devour us all...
Laissez faire comrades.
And now back to your regularly scheduled political discussion.
Anarchy is not a dirty word.
If we're gonna dream brothers and sisters, dream of the end as we know it, for what we have created and continue to feed will surely devour us all...
Laissez faire comrades.
And now back to your regularly scheduled political discussion.
Last edited by Small White Car; 01-25-2012 at 08:42 PM.
#36
If you understand that basic economic principle (It's an utter impossibility for a sales tax not to be regressive by definition), then the argument becomes entirely about the prebate.
The prebate goes neutral somewhere between 12k-15k in income.
Those making between the above and 20k-25k pay a tiny bit less due to various other taxes *supposedly* being repealed with the "fair" tax.
Those making between the above and 200k pay more to significantly more. (It could represent a tax increase by as much as 10% for me personally or possibly even slightly more, as an example.)
Those making 200k+ get a huge tax break.
This is using every single prebate I've found on every single proposal for Fair Tax. Are you referring to some kind of proposal that no one has published? I can't find it. I just went through your Wikipedia article, and it sums up everything I've said. All the sources that aren't direct supporters of the Fair Tax agree with me.
You do understand that just because you want to believe in something doesn't make it true, right? The Fair Tax supporters use laughable logic when it's a very simple concept. You only have to find the intersection of the tax cost - prebate (Simple graphing, yo) compared to current taxes, then find the next intersection of tax cost vs. current incomes (Another simple job of graphing.) The entire argument of the Fair Tax comes down to "But the rich people will SPEND MORE if we tax them less! And as a result, everyone will get more!"
It's just more trickle down drek. But if you put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig.
#38
I give. You win. I was tired of this discussion well before my last post.
He asked what I would do and there you have it. You can tax only the rich people until they all leave, and also give free money and Twinkies out to the poor who choose not to work if you become czar. I won't even try to stop you. You have your utopia and I have mine. Mine will never happen. Maybe yours will.
He asked what I would do and there you have it. You can tax only the rich people until they all leave, and also give free money and Twinkies out to the poor who choose not to work if you become czar. I won't even try to stop you. You have your utopia and I have mine. Mine will never happen. Maybe yours will.
#39
I give. You win. I was tired of this discussion well before my last post.
He asked what I would do and there you have it. You can tax only the rich people until they all leave, and also give free money and Twinkies out to the poor who choose not to work if you become czar. I won't even try to stop you. You have your utopia and I have mine. Mine will never happen. Maybe yours will.
He asked what I would do and there you have it. You can tax only the rich people until they all leave, and also give free money and Twinkies out to the poor who choose not to work if you become czar. I won't even try to stop you. You have your utopia and I have mine. Mine will never happen. Maybe yours will.
#40
I find it incredibly offensive that I saved for 4 years to go into debt by selling my house and not forclosing, lost my tax deduction, and now obama wants to allow people underwater to refiance for freez.