It's way past time to Abolish the IRS

Your point about increased prices being hard on college students is a valid one, but how exactly would higher sales taxes in any way prevent you from getting an education or better job? You don't buy either of those things at retail.

I think he's simply thinking about the ability to pay for college expenses. College students would pay taxes like everyone else, even though they're low income, so... it's a valid point. Although I think what would really happen is just higher student loan debts.

No, but I need an education to get a better job.

Education in this country costs money. A lot of money.

Money is being sucked out of my wallet with this new sales tax idea.

Ergo, I don't have the money to go to school to get a better job.

Would you like fries with that?

LF

Yes, and make it QUICK TOO!

Sry. I'm a bastage I know..

Unfair? According to what standard of fairness? Who taught you that this should be considered unfair?

Perhaps it is unfair for the elected class (that is, those that appeal to the poor (those in greater number, by your own admission) to get elected ) to decide that those deemed wealthy should contribute a greater percentage of their holdings to the commonwealth.

So what is fair? Is fair an absolute standard by which everyone can be measured? Say, perhaps a system where the same rules apply to everyone? (Maybe even a sales tax for everyone, or a flat tax for everyone?)

Orrrr..... is fair whatever the majority of the populace -at any given time, in any given economic condition, of any popular cultural persuasion- say it ought to be? Large numbers of poor getting together usually don't care for the "rich"- haha!

<sarcasm>Well, I know one thing, it's a good thing the poor outnumber the rich! Just imagine if the rich outnumbered the poor! Then the poor would really be in trouble! I'm sure the rich would choose their own elected class, running the poor, poor people out of existence! Then everyone would be rich! No more poor people! Oh wait.... is it the poor who decide who is rich? Because if so then there would also be no rich people... only people! Well we certainly don't want to be unable to divide, classify, and categorize people.... that would be terrible! Then the elected and the elitists will have no one to pander to and take care of! But wait... maybe there is some universal standard by which the rich are determined? hmmm</sarcasm>


Seems to me that the rich spend more / buy more than the poor. Would anyone disagree with this? If so, I'm sure there is some very interesting data to back it up.

Perhaps the poor can be incentivized to quit being poor. Or, are they mindless idiots, incapable of choosing ways and means to improve their circumstances? How did you become so different from them?

See mention of poverty rate in original post.

Perhaps poor people by and large don't mind being poor. It does seem that the rich prefer being rich. What of it?

Hmmm... okay, maybe we could change human nature!

Well, with pretty much any decent tax reform proposal, you being THAT poor would get your tax money back also, just like today.

The forum algorithm has determined with a probability of 0.85 that you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Granted these are tentative results, yet based on the body of your text, they look encouraging.

~Ulrika~

Is that all you can say? Care to be a bit more specific there? Please demonstrate to all that you know more about the matter at hand. Teach us. Ready, Steady, set, GO.

I shall pardon it. But do take the time to at least run through the comparison chart at http://www.fairtax.org/

If you pay zero income tax now, you will get REFUNDED your sales tax under FairTax, thus spending your way to to a higher income bracket. In essence, you will be paying LESS for stuff than you are now, if you are in a state that taxes. Under the other alternatives, (keeping it the same and the slight improvement), you will also not pay income tax if you do not pay it now, but you will still pay a lot of other taxes, including sales.

Is it clear enough that no one wants to hurt people here? The idea is to make it better for everyone. One plan does it better than the other. Both do it better than the current system.

Low income people get what they're paying in sales tax back? So now we have to track all that data.......wheeew.

So much for less red tape.

But hey, my industry will love it, the financial software upgrades needed will be massive!

Why not just push for a flat income tax if what you want is fairness? (not saying to, just asking)

Because a flat income tax is not 'fair'. Even the lousy system we have today is better.

As to red tape involved in giving back taxes; I misunderstood the system. Further research revealed it works via rebates. Everyone gets the same rebate. Naturally this means the rebate is less useful for rich people who buy more things and make more money. As to adding to red tape, I imagine it would take up a lot less space to mail out a rebate check to every citizen every year, once a year, than it would to do what we do now with processing income, auditing, etc. Also your personal informaition may be better protected as they need less of it.

http://fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/faq-main.html

Well, If I end up paying more while the rich people pay less, relatively, then it's unfair, yes. Pretty basic reasoning there.





While we're being pendantic, let's ask Mr. Webster.
----
FAIR: 6 a : marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism <a very fair person to do business with> b (1) : conforming with the established rules : ALLOWED (2) : consonant with merit or importance : DUE <a fair share> c : open to legitimate pursuit, attack, or ridicule <fair game>
----

Yay, semantics! English is so messy.



If you were paying attention to the debate, it's not a question of how much, but how much in relation to your income. The upper classes' sales tax is the same AMOUNT as a poorer person's, but what is the percentage of 6 cents per dollar within 100,000 a year, compared to 6 cents per dollar within 15,000 a year?

To quote Lewis Black, "Big. Fuck. Difference."



What the fuck does this have to do with anything? You can't just grasp at the "golden hand of richitude" and suddenly be well-off, spending your bling on Cadillacs and hoes.

There are perhaps 4.5 billion reasons you don't have 3 million dollars in the bank... saying "well, maybe they just SHOULDNT be poor" is callous, and ignorant of the human condition.




See above.



If it lessens the severe ignorance of this post, I'm all for it. Hold still, I need to poke your brain with a drill bit.

I'm no economist, and I usually stay the hell away from discussions like this one.

Having said that, I see the whole idea as something cooked up by the banks and credit institutions. In order to tax everything we consume, there has to be a record kept of every purchase completed. This could get complicated with cash purchases.

An example:

You have the kids at Best Buy, and as you head out the door, you decide to get the kids gumballs from the huge gumball machines near the door. Two purchases from the machine at 25 cents each. The machine takes quarters. Is this a taxable purchase? Is there a limit to what can be taxed? If a 25 cent purchase is taxible, how is it recorded? Do we have to convert the machines to accept credit or debit cards?

In my opinion, Fairtax is a gift to credit institutions and banks. I think the only way anyone will be able to track all purchases is to effectively end cash transactions. Even now, fast food chains are allowing credit and debit card purchases. We have pay at the pump at gas stations. Some grocery chains have automated cashiers.

Encouraging credit card purchases for everything is a bad idea. There are many out there, particularly young adults, who are very likely to spend beyond their means. Compounding the problem with making it easier to buy consumables (such as gasoline and food) only has made the problem worse. What happens when people can't pay the bills? You can't reposess something that was eaten or burned. Sure, the creditors can go through the usual processes to get paid, but they can't squeeze blood from a turnip. In the end, we all pay in higher interest rates and other associated fees.

In the end, the way I see it, Fairtax is just a smokescreen. They lure you in with the promise of a simpler tax system, but in the end, the banks will benefit the most.

How are they going to track every single purchase? They're not (although in the current system in an audit, you may be expected to account for every purchase you claim as deduction on your various tax forms). I was a bit mistaken as to the means by which the truly poor wouldn't have to pay the tax. Essentially a flat rebate will be received by all (no tracking needed at all).

Such a rebate would be very little benefit to a rich person, but a great benefit to someone who doesn't even spend that much in sales tax every year. I've linked the faq and main site in previous posts. They make it quite clear. They also have some nifty comparisons to the current system and another proposed system.

How is the "flat rebate" calculated? I'm too lazy to read about it. lol

This has never happened in the history of taxation, with the exception of a few people taking advantages of loopholes, which themselves are efforts to "level" the playing field in a code that is too complex.

Well while you are being smart in an effor to make yourself feel smart, let me spell it out for you: Who says fair is good? You? Who are YOU to say that fair is good? God? And assumed fair is good, who are you to say that your ideas and interpreptations about fairness are good? And to whom should they be good? You? Or you and everyone else?

Further, are you suggesting that a progressive tax code is fair? (Of course it is "fair" to those without)


You don't make a bit of sense. Rich guy on average spends 5x as much as poor guy per yer on taxable goods and services. Rich guy contributes 5x as much tax, not taking into account the universal rebate (assuming you actually know something about the Fair Tax)

And, who are you to say taxation should be in relation to income? [You lefties with your presuppositions that you never stop to question]

How about:
One man, one vote, one fair tax relative to what he consumes. Not one unfair tax relative to how much the liberals think you ought to contribute back into the system, based upon how much they decide you owe back to society as a wealth penalty for having been lucky in life's lottery.

How much better is it for one-man to determine what he pays in taxes by making his own purchasing decisions, all clear and in the open, without the burden of the complex tax code on himself or anyone else in the system. (not to mention relief from all of the hidden taxes we all pay now.)

This as opposed to other people deciding.....people who think they are smarter than everyone else and ought to be able to decide for him.

The math has been done. Oh wait, you mean you are going to argue that greedy rich people will quit spending on taxable items and that the system will go broke? Please go ahead so we can laugh at you some more.

You are stuck in the trenches. Get your mind off of your anecdotals. We are looking at broad, culturally based behaviors and tendencies. [Tip: your language says a lot about you]


More oversimplification. To suggest that the poor by and large must and will stay poor is ignorant of the human condition.

Yeah nice... but you don't know what you are talking about, my friend with seemingly great numbers of presuppositions and assumptions you were either taught and never questioned or pulled out of... something.

from the FAQ:

How does the rebate work? All valid Social Security cardholders who are U.S. residents receive a monthly rebate equivalent to the FairTax paid on essential goods and services, also known as the poverty level expenditures. The rebate is paid in advance, in equal installments each month. The size of the rebate is determined by the Department of Health & Human Services’ poverty level multiplied by the tax rate. This is a well-accepted, long-used poverty-level calculation that includes food, clothing, shelter, transportation, medical care, etc. See chart in Figure 1 below.

Quetzalcoatl, the god of the morning star, sometimes known as Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, gives to the mankind books, calendars, and maize. His brother Xolotl, the god of the evening star gave to mankind the snake of self righteousness, who slithered into your crib as an infant, injecting you with the venom of stereotypical midwestern quasi-intellectual conservatism. From this bite sprang forth the infection of average intelligence and the inability to perceive the limitations in your own arguments and abilities. Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli weeps for you.

~Ulrika~

liberals need income tax to give away to lazy mooches. conservatives need income tax to drop bombs on heathens. either way, income tax is necessary for western nations to pursue their various hobbies.

I don't think FairTax is an idea that could either be liberal or conservative... It is a change from what we have (liberal) but might be more in line with what we had before our current system (conservative, maybe). Personally, I think we should leave that aspect out. Name calling doesn't really get us anywhere when we're all just trying to do something good.

ok, that's great in hypothetical land. but who will make it happen in the real world? not any political party near you!

There are certain ugly truths that no one likes to admit about Capitalism and how it works:

1) For there to be a 'rich', there must be a 'poor'.
2) Corporations are more important than people.

And in general, there is only one rule about taxation:

1) Taxes are for those either too ignorant or too powerless to avoid them.

Between the class envious, the politicans, and the organized religions - there's enough focus on division and splintering the grass roots to avoid any real or lasting change. That's both the humor and the pity of it all -- people would prefer to beat one another over the head about minute differences in opinion and ideology than focus on the greater commonalities and work together to see effective, lasting change.

This thread is an example of that division at work.

Regardless ideology, political affiliation, or any other dividing factor, I would cheerfully support any effort to eliminate the IRS as it stands. For no other reason than these:

1) It was intended to be temporary, therefore it should be temporary.
2) Income has a definition under Federal Law and your renumeration isn't it.
3) The Tax Code is not US Law and we should not be subject to any rule that is not US Law.

Care to back that up?

I can think of a lot of royal regimes where the nobles (ie the old school version of "rich" didn't pay any taxes because they were sexxing up the queen or something.



Fine, let's turn it around on you.

Who says that what YOU propose is fair? Did God come down from the Heavens and strike the Fairtax proposers with massive human insight, thus making it more "fair"? What is "fair"? AM I fair? Are you fair?

Let's all go to the county fair.

Fair fair fair.




If it fixes the current problems without introducing new ones, then yes, I guess it is "FAIR" by some random standard.




Once again, you're missing the point. Let me slow it down for you.

Let us assume that the federal sales tax (not including state or local taxes, by the way... so this will be on top of whatever state taxes and local taxes you have) is 25%, after our magical tax rebate check.

Let's pretend I make $US 20,000.

Let's Pretend Rich Guy Tom makes $US 200,000.

What's 25% of $US 20,000? $US 5,000.

What's 25% of $US 200,000? $US 50,000.

So at the end of all this, my adjusted income is $US 15,000, and Tom's income is $US 150,000.

I am at the poverty line, while Tom is still rocking out with tons of money.

Do you see what's wrong with this? Yes, I paid less. But my proportion is a LOT more important to my social well-being than Tom's $US 50,000. At this system I barely have enough to put food on the table for my family and keep a roof over their heads, while Tom -- poor Tom -- Can't buy another Mercedes.

Oh, the humanity.

Do you get it now?




Stop assuming, it makes you look like a dick.

Anyways, I dunno, about 200 years of federal taxation says that rich people should pay more, in order to fund the rest of society which that exploited to get as rich as they are.




Lucky in life's lottery? Bill Gates didn't stumble upon his billions, he worked at it. So did almost every other millionaire in the world.

They should be funding society's programs more than the people who are, you know, not starving because of them. They're in a position to "make the world a better place"... why not FORCE THEM to?

Oh, boo hoo, poor rich guy. Only two benzs in his garage.

Pay up or leave the country.




It's horrible, because you're going to be paying at least 30-40% more on all of your purchases, while not making any more money. Can you budget for that? The average American can't.




An accountant is more qualified to look at my taxes than I am. I have a tendency to listen to experts, rather than people spouting on the forums. I would say he is "smarter" than you when it comes to tax code. Ergo, his opinion holds more weight.




Wanna know what I would do if I had 3 billion dollars? Buy everything overseas, make a shell corporation, and import it all to my house. Tada, no sales tax. Hey, I tell all my buddies at the country club. Tada, they're not paying taxes either.

Every system devised by man has a loophole. Magical tax rebates and insane sales taxes are no exception.




Pro Tip: talking down to me like i'm six is a great way to lose an argument on a forum.





And you do? Did you write the tax code? The constitution? Are you the CEO of H&R Block?

Isn't this some sort of logical fallacy, like Appeal to Authority, or some such rubbish?

How about you stop talking down to me and, instead, defend your Magical Rebate and Insane Sales Tax Proposal without stopping every two sentences to say how moronic I am?

LF

At the risk of repeating myself, I really think a national payroll tax is a better alternative to the income tax than any sort of sales tax (with the possible exception of targeted "luxury" taxes that exempt standard rent, housing, food, and clothing).

A payroll tax would ease the burden on the working poor, retirees and the lower middle class, as well as single-proprietership and small partnership businesses. It simplifies recordkeeping enormously (a key point if you want to eliminate the IRS). Enforcement is easier and more effective, because you're going after deep corporate pockets rather than individuals.

And just as a side-note, the federal poverty guidelines have been nothing but political fluff since Reagan cut the numbers to make it look as though there were fewer poor in the nation. A living wage is significantly higer than the poverty line, and it exceeds the minimum wage by a wide margin. The so-called "fair" tax shifts a huge percentage of responsibility off the wealthy and onto the backs of the working poor and lower middle class, and may well trigger another cycle of violent conflict similar to the labor movement of the late 19th and early 20th century.