Fair Tax?

[semmie]

is it fair? would it honestly work?

[Paintbucket]

I think it's a great idea. Fair tax is a tax that taxes you for what you consume, so the less you use, the less you pay. It's a great idea because it will get people to be more responsible with their money and not allow for hard-working people to be punished by the income tax. It'll probably never happen though, but it's a great idea.

[Jim_Casy]

is it fair? would it honestly work?I'm not an expert on the "Fair Tax", but from what I've seen so far, it is neither fair, nor financially feasible. Capital expenditures and investments are not taxed, thus shifting the tax burden on those whose income goes to necessary purchases rather than discretionary income put into investments. Wealth would be allowed to grow unchecked, thus increasing the already-growing gap between rich and poor.

Also, individually, savings is a fine habit to develop, but wide-spread savings would likely damage an economy like ours. Check out the paradox of thrift (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_thrift).

Then again, like I said, I'm not an economist, so I could be wrong.

[Timothy Leary]

1) There is no such thing as a 'fair' tax - no matter how a system is structured, it will be unfair to someone.

2) Would it work? Not as a blanket replacment for our tax system. It has its pros and cons.

[Sheepdog]

Some of the advocate claims are over blown, but it has some good points.

Sales taxes typically shift the tax burden, relative to income, towards the poor. however, the prebate they are suggesting up to the poverty level would offset that. more or less everyone who doesn't pay federal income taxes now would still not be paying under the fair tax.

[Augustine2004]

Financing our governments has to be purely voluntary. Taxes (including tariffs, corvees, other forms) and financing by borrowing are theft.

[Timothy Leary]

Financing our governments has to be purely voluntary. Taxes (including tariffs, corvees, other forms) and financing by borrowing are theft.
It wouldn't be 'government' if it was voluntary
The problem with abolishing governments is that other thugs - usually worse - will just fill the void

[Augustine2004]

It wouldn't be 'government' if it was voluntary
The problem with abolishing governments is that other thugs - usually worse - will just fill the voidPlease justify that statement - thoroughly.

[Timothy Leary]

Please justify that statement - thoroughly.

There's no need to. Here's a simpler way.

1) Point to somewhere on this earth that is truly in 'anarchy' (areas run by mobs and warlords do not count)
1a) Point to somewhere on this earth, in anarchy, whose populace live in better conditions than we do in the USA.

2) 13% of America is libertarian. Of that 13%, I'd say probably 5% are anarchists. Do the math. Do you think all of those "statists" are just going to do nothing if the government ceased to exist?

Though I will change one thing - you don't *always* get worse thugs.
Sometimes you get better ones, that's why revolutions happen.

[Augustine2004]

Agent Yoshi, the USA is no longer ranked #1 in terms of economic conditions, and it has the largest government ever in world history.

You did see those tables that compare the size of the government of a given nation to its economic conditions. Roughly speaking, there's an inverse correlation. The smaller the government, the better the economy. Why we may not conclude that if the government were only small (primary tasks are only to punish the evildoer and praise the good citizen), then we would have optimum?

Actually, if the people is going to be bad, it really doesn't matter how good the government is. The people has to be good enough . . .

[Paintbucket]

A pure free market is the absolute worst thing that America could have. Without tariffs and taxes, the American economy would be run by the Chinese and Indians like it is now, but only to a much greater extent.

Who is number one in the world for economy then? I am sure that they would have a large government as well.

I don't like large states (I'm more libertarian than authoritarian), and I'll agree that the American government is too big. However, people cannot do everything by themselves, not everyone is capable enough to do so. There must be more than a skeleton government to regulate things, otherwise someone powerhungry will just impose a coup.

[Augustine2004]

Who would want to seize the reins of a virtually powerless government? No, the more powerful the government the more tempting a coup. I worry about another Hitler (if Bush & Cheney are not Hitlers already) taking power.

The Chinese and the Indians do own some American properties already. Moreover, if they caused trouble, they'd be liable to lose their American properties as angry Americans seize them for compensation.

Nobody would want to invade a country full of gun owners who can figure out to make plenty of IEDs.

In a free market economy people can do whatever people can in other kinds of economies - and do more and better. You made a stupid statement.

[Augustine2004]

Who is number one in the world for economy then? I am sure that they would have a large government as well.
China has been growing rapidly, but I think there's a country in Africa (of all places!) that did better for decades. I don't remember the name, I can look if you want. Neither China nor this country do much intervention in the economy. Laissez faire for the most part.

[Paintbucket]

If you don't mind, please find this African nation for me.

Who would want a powerless government? You really didn't ask that did you? I'll let you figure out who would want to take over a powerless government.

A pure free market would drive America to a massive unemployment rate, because it is cheaper to pay others to make goods than Americans. And when the average American is out of a job and cannot afford to eat, they'll really like their free-market.

I like the analogy that was given in "A Beautiful Mind." In a pure free market, all of the men would go after the blonde. But there are multiple men and only one blonde, so only one man can win. So what happens to the losers? Without a government to keep peace and provide help for them, they'll resort to mob behavior. And then we end up like Somalia.

I'm not against the 2nd amendment. I do think that an average citizen should be trained in any firearm they own, and only military or police should have weapons such as an assault rifle. That's a little much for any bloke to have, a 12-gauge should suffice. And then the IED's, that's not quite the thing you want a populace to all know.

Unless you decide to train people, which is a big government program, then a lot of people would be unable to take care of all of their needs. For example, my father is the son of tenant farmers who never owned anything other than the clothes on their backs. My father has no concept of owning anything and what it entails. He has no concept of how insurance works, and little concept of technology. Do you really expect a person like my father to make a decent living and not be on the bottom of society without some help?

[Augustine2004]

Google sucks, but I finally found an article on the fastest growing nation:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_34/b3796629.htm

The thing is, it may not be Botswana. Besides, the article that I read was published last year IIRC.

[Augustine2004]

And then we end up like Somalia.
You certainly don't know what you're talking about. The UN imposed a national government on Somalia for the ostensible reason of chaos there. Phooey. In reality, it was getting embarrassing for the UN and big governments, I think. One article at least on this point I've read.

[Augustine2004]

Unless you decide to train people, which is a big government program, then a lot of people would be unable to take care of all of their needs. For example, my father is the son of tenant farmers who never owned anything other than the clothes on their backs. My father has no concept of owning anything and what it entails. He has no concept of how insurance works, and little concept of technology. Do you really expect a person like my father to make a decent living and not be on the bottom of society without some help?You certainly need some education, which you will have to get on your own. Hie thee to www.mises.org and start reading.

[Paintbucket]

The UN imposed a government because Somalia became a society barely able to function on a macro level. I'm not in favor of a big government, but for the world we live in today, there has to be something to provide basic regulation of the populace. I'm not saying that we need a massive fascist regime installed, but a government that can collect small taxes, provide an overview for health and education, and take care of foreign affairs and defense.

Here's the inherent problem with that. My father had NO money. His parents had NO money. So he was unable to receive education beyond high school, and living in a rural area during the late 60's, the education isn't too stellar. So under an anarchy/pure free market, my father becomes a homeless dredge because he lacks the education he needs to get a high job that is less immune to being shipped overseas.

[Augustine2004]

The UN imposed a government because Somalia became a society barely able to function on a macro level.?? You mean no national government? If so that's true. Somalia got along just fine without it.

Here's the inherent problem with that. My father had NO money. His parents had NO money. So he was unable to receive education beyond high school, and living in a rural area during the late 60's, the education isn't too stellar. So under an anarchy/pure free market, my father becomes a homeless dredge because he lacks the education he needs to get a high job that is less immune to being shipped overseas.How did Abraham Lincoln get to be so well educated? How did the American colonists?

I'm sorry about your forebears. You certainly were fortunate to escape such crushing poverty. It would be interesting to know in detail how you managed to do so. I won't deny some people benefited from the education that the government provided out of taxpayer money. Now, won't you please avail yourself of the free education that www.mises.org provides, before the government shuts it down?

[Paintbucket]

Somalia was a polyglot community of local warlords who just fought each other all the time. I guess they got along fine if you like violence a lot.

The scenario is different from the 1960's to the 1800's. Also, Lincoln had a great mind, and was able to excel at the chances he got. Most of the colonists did not need much of an education, in today's world you need one. I do not live in crushing poverty, because of the following things. My father did not mess up with the little that he had, and used it wisely to live on. He was unable to afford college and was not scholar material, but he did finish high school. My mother is a college graduate (James Madison in Harrisonburg, VA in the mid-70's), and she is also very responsible with money. My parents do not make much money (We're middle class, but on the lower end), but their credit is so good, their debt is little or none, and they spend it so well that it seems like we have more than we actually do. My parents own our house, and own a few cars - all but one were initially bought at least 15 years ago. My mother is a social worker, and she sees people who take what the government gives them and do nothing about it. She sees that if you're responsible with what you have, then you can at least live, which both my parents and I do. My sister is not the same way, she spends money as soon as she gets it, but I am pretty tight with the little money that I have.

I've read some of the info from the site. I do have it bookmarked, and I'll get to it again soon.

[Timothy Leary]

Agent Yoshi, the USA is no longer ranked #1 in terms of economic conditions, and it has the largest government ever in world history.

Tell me then what country has a stronger economy than we do, hrm??

Why we may not conclude that if the government were only small (primary tasks are only to punish the evildoer and praise the good citizen), then we would have optimum?

I thought you wanted a strictly voluntary only government?

Actually, if the people is going to be bad, it really doesn't matter how good the government is. The people has to be good enough . . .

That's true to an extent, but - for better or worse - government can do a lot through 'social engineering' or whatever its called.

[Augustine2004]

Somalia was a polyglot community of local warlords who just fought each other all the time. I guess they got along fine if you like violence a lot.
Where did you get that, UN propaganda?

[Augustine2004]

Tell me then what country has a stronger economy than we do, hrm??Singapore, Hong Kong, Switzerland, . . .



I thought you wanted a strictly voluntary only government?Yes, that would be good. That sort of government has actually been tried before. See the Book of Judges in the Bible.



That's true to an extent, but - for better or worse - government can do a lot through 'social engineering' or whatever its called.A problem with that is that the government cannot measure the results. Is it doing more good than bad? How would it know? I have more on this posted elsewhere in TWeb if you'd like to read it.

[Timothy Leary]

Singapore, Hong Kong, Switzerland, . . .

Interesting, it seems you're right about Singapore (I didn't look up the median household income for the other two) - but it makes me wonder two questions:

1) What is the level of taxation, in contrast to a typical american family?
2) Why are these countries performing better in median income? Does this translate to a better quality of life?
3) Does this disprove the idea that limited govt & strong economies go hand in hand?
You can get arrested in Singapore for chewing gum of all things - so I really don't see Singapore as being a possible example of limited govt (though I don't know much about the country, so correct me if I'm wrong)

Yes, that would be good. That sort of government has actually been tried before. See the Book of Judges in the Bible.

Exact Reference? I'm not as familiar with the Book of Judges, but the Tanach-era (and Tanakh-style) governments were anything but voluntary.

A problem with that is that the government cannot measure the results.

Why couldn't a government measure the results?

If the government spends tens of billions of dollars on the war on drugs, and finds that the price of pot is still dropping, you can obviously see that this isn't working.

If, on the other hand, government schools in one area switch out soda pop vending machines for healthier alternatives, and people adopt wiser drinking habits, then it is something that is working.

Is it doing more good than bad? How would it know? I have more on this posted elsewhere in TWeb if you'd like to read it.

Those are questions that deal more with efficiency of a government's actions, and/or the morality of it, rather than the capability of a government to effect change.

[Augustine2004]

Interesting, it seems you're right about Singapore (I didn't look up the median household income for the other two) - but it makes me wonder two questions:

1) What is the level of taxation, in contrast to a typical american family?Better to ask about how much the government spends per capita.
2) Why are these countries performing better in median income? Does this translate to a better quality of life?You can't quite make comparisons like that. I'll explain why later.
3) Does this disprove the idea that limited govt & strong economies go hand in hand? :huh:Well, we can discuss related questions later.
You can get arrested in Singapore for chewing gum of all things - so I really don't see Singapore as being a possible example of limited govt (though I don't know much about the country, so correct me if I'm wrong)Singapore, I would agree, is not perfect.



Exact Reference? I'm not as familiar with the Book of Judges = the whole book!

but the Tanach-era (and Tanakh-style) governments were anything but voluntary. == after the period of the Judges, you're correct.



Why couldn't a government measure the results?
I'll give you links to posts later, OK?

[JonLanceBarker]

wow. i wanted to see more about Fair Tax. thanks for derailing the thread with your silly libertarianism, Auggie. :tongue:

[Augustine2004]

wow. i wanted to see more about Fair Tax. thanks for derailing the thread with your silly libertarianism, Auggie. :tongue::ha: Well, I do offer an alternative. Besides, we should know that the Fair Tax is not really fair.

[JonLanceBarker]

:ha: Well, I do offer an alternative. Besides, we should know that the Fair Tax is not really fair.

alternative...:twitch: um, yeah..no tax. :lolo: yet another reason why libertarianism/anarchy is not even close to feasible.

[Augustine2004]

voluntary contributions not feasible??

[JonLanceBarker]

voluntary contributions not feasible??

no, they're not. must i really explain this?

(i suppose i must...)

what incentive will sinfully selfish people have to give to the government, if not the negative incentive of possibility of retribution?

i can just imagine trying another tack:

Govt: well, we don't really have the right to force you to give us money, so we're just going to ask you for regular voluntary contributions.

Citizen: Why? I have arable land, an able-bodied family to work it, and enough money to keep it going. What do I need your help for?

Govt: well, our job is to protect you if someone wrongs you.

Citizen: I also have a shotgun. Wanna stick around so I can show you?

[Augustine2004]

JonLanceBarker:

Yes, the myth of national defense. I've started a thread on small (minimal) government. I anticipate that eventually it will raise, if not already has raised, that subtopic.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=107328

[Timothy Leary]

Dude, Augustine, the govt in Shoftim was anything but voluntary!
Remember when Gideon and his men attacked the Medianites?

[Augustine2004]

Dude, Augustine, the govt in Shoftim was anything but voluntary!
Remember when Gideon and his men attacked the Medianites?Are you referring to the time when Israel asked Jerubbaal to be king after his victories, but he refused? Please go to the small government thread instead of replying here.

[dobrenen]

If you haven't read the book, do so. You can take something of a shortcut by going to FairTax.org. But read the book. And don't believe most of what you hear or read in the media or on the Web. READ THE BOOK before you make up your mind on the Fair Tax. Once you've read the book, read the sequel. And for god's sake don't call Neal Boortz if you haven't read the book! I don't want to listen to him rant about you! OK. One more time read the book.

[Augustine2004]

It’s certainly simpler and more transparent than our present system. Those are big points. Fair? I suppose it’s more fair also. However, the requirement for revenue neutrality means that it misses the point that the government is doing more bad than good.
If it's really doing more good than bad, why not just let it take over our lives? "Leave the living to us", like the bus commercial. 100% government 0% free market! Yea!

[Ryokan]

It’s certainly simpler and more transparent than our present system. Those are big points. Fair? I suppose it’s more fair also. However, the requirement for revenue neutrality means that it misses the point that the government is doing more bad than good.
If it's really doing more good than bad, why not just let it take over our lives? "Leave the living to us", like the bus commercial. 100% government 0% free market! Yea!

Augustine, did it occur to you that maybe when the government does somethings it produce more bad than good and not when it does others? Has it occured to you sometimes the government does something okay, and the market simply does it better? Has it occured to you, basically, there is the color grey in the world?

[Augustine2004]

Augustine, did it occur to you that maybe when the government does somethings it produce more bad than good and not when it does others? Has it occured to you sometimes the government does something okay, and the market simply does it better? Has it occured to you, basically, there is the color grey in the world?Yes. However, how would you know that when the government undertakes a new action, whether it will do more good than bad? Moreover given any current course of action, is the government doing more good than bad? How do you KNOW? You claim to know, or at least you imply you know, but you have not demonstrated that to my satisfaction. I've given what I thought and still think are sufficient reasons to expect that the government will do more bad than good.

[Crow]

Who would want to seize the reins of a virtually powerless government?

My guess is any other government in the market for a colony.

[Mr Arkadin]

Dunno if anyone has said this already but a fair tax is an oxymoron. Tax is theft and therefore immoral and unfair.

[JonLanceBarker]

Dunno if anyone has said this already but a fair tax is an oxymoron. Tax is theft and therefore immoral and unfair.

and your evidence is....? :whistle:

[Augustine2004]

and your evidence is....? :whistle:There! Evidence JLB is an idiot.

[Augustine2004]

My guess is any other government in the market for a colony.You mean like when the UN took over Somalia?

[Crow]

You mean like when the UN took over Somalia?

Nope. I mean like when any strong government with a great deal of power takes over a weaker country, be it because that country has lesser defensive resources or because it doesn't have the internal governmental unity or structure to respond.

I'm thinking more along the line of Germany steamrollering it's way over Europe in the late Thirties/early Forties.

[JonLanceBarker]

There! Evidence JLB is an idiot.

do you have some, Augsy? cause i sure haven't seen it yet...:lolo:

i don't see a single thing wrong with taxation in principle...it's paying your benefactor for necessary services rendered in order to keep them coming!

next you'll tell me it's immoral for the phone company to send me a bill, or the power company to charge me for using its electricity!

geez...:lolo:

[Augustine2004]

Nope.HUH!? I mean like when any strong government with a great deal of power takes over a weaker country, be it because that country has lesser defensive resources or because it doesn't have the internal governmental unity or structure to respond.yes I got that the first time.

I'm thinking more along the line of Germany steamrollering it's way over Europe in the late Thirties/early Forties.Yes, and a better example might be the USA steamrollering its way through Iraq in the first part of this century.

[Crow]

Yes, and a better example might be the USA steamrollering its way through Iraq in the first part of this century.

Well, gosh, darn, then, Iraq should have had it's ducks in order. Just because a government is a dictatorship with a lot of power over the citizen's lives doesn't mean that abusing it's citizens won't have them joining in step and beating your statue with their shoes when the outside forces drag it down the street.

[Augustine2004]

Well, gosh, darn, then, Iraq should have had it's ducks in order. Just because a government is a dictatorship with a lot of power over the citizen's lives doesn't mean that abusing it's citizens won't have them joining in step and beating your statue with their shoes when the outside forces drag it down the street.I'll let you have the last words, whatever they mean.

[dobrenen]

It’s certainly simpler and more transparent than our present system. Those are big points. Fair? I suppose it’s more fair also. However, the requirement for revenue neutrality means that it misses the point that the government is doing more bad than good.
If it's really doing more good than bad, why not just let it take over our lives? "Leave the living to us", like the bus commercial. 100% government 0% free market! Yea!

Read the book. :read:

Revenue neutrality is a political concession to try and get the Fair Tax implemented. Once implemented it is up to tax payers to elect congressmen that will reduce the size of government and thus the size of the tax.

Read the book. :read: It is not very long and is an easy read.

[Mr Arkadin]

do you have some, Augsy? cause i sure haven't seen it yet...:lolo:

i don't see a single thing wrong with taxation in principle...it's paying your benefactor for necessary services rendered in order to keep them coming!

geez...:lolo:

Ok so the mafia steal your car and provide your necessary protection. Is that theft? If not why not? If so how is this different from tax?

[JonLanceBarker]

Ok so the mafia steal your car and provide your necessary protection. Is that theft? If not why not? If so how is this different from tax?

if you already agreed in some manner to give them your car, or in your society a car is equivalent to a cash payment, and your society is governed by the mafia, then no, it's not theft.

once the mafia is accepted by the people as a legitimate governing power, demanding payment is a legitimate practice.

we are raised in this society to expect the government to tax us, and since we allow the government to protect us and (unless one is an anarchist or Aug) do not question its authority to play that role of societal protector, we should have no problem compensating them for service. We may disagree about how much they should get from us, but you'll find few who'd say that in principle, govt. should get no compensation at all from the citizens.

"Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar," you know...even if Caesar is a bit of a villain.

[Mr Arkadin]

if you already agreed in some manner to give them your car, or in your society a car is equivalent to a cash payment, and your society is governed by the mafia, then no, it's not theft.

once the mafia is accepted by the people as a legitimate governing power, demanding payment is a legitimate practice.

we are raised in this society to expect the government to tax us, and since we allow the government to protect us and (unless one is an anarchist or Aug) do not question its authority to play that role of societal protector, we should have no problem compensating them for service. We may disagree about how much they should get from us, but you'll find few who'd say that in principle, govt. should get no compensation at all from the citizens.

"Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar," you know...even if Caesar is a bit of a villain.

Ok so the majority believe that killing Jews is fine therefore killing Jews is fine? That is basically what you're arguing. However I have never given my consent to the government at any point. If I have where is the contract I signed. The US constitution was signed by around 70 men all of whom are no dead, yet the constitution is supposed to bind US subjects. Suppose if A took B to court for a contract violation. B responds by stating that he has never signed any contract with A. A responds that B's grandfather signed this contract and it is then binding on B. The judge would remove A from court forthwith probably with expenses for wasting court time.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Ok so the majority believe that killing Jews is fine therefore killing Jews is fine?Wow! Godwin's law and the fair tax. You go girl!
That is basically what you're arguing. However I have never given my consent to the government at any point. If I have where is the contract I signed. The US constitution was signed by around 70 men all of whom are no dead, yet the constitution is supposed to bind US subjects. Suppose if A took B to court for a contract violation. B responds by stating that he has never signed any contract with A. A responds that B's grandfather signed this contract and it is then binding on B. The judge would remove A from court forthwith probably with expenses for wasting court time.Dude, if you don't want to pay taxes or what not, go live in a shed in the woods. They'll leave you alone.

However, if you are going to use services that government tax dollars provide (roads, bridges, investing, food quality assurance), you best just be quiet and pay your fair share, lest you sound and look like a hypocrite.

[rogue06]

Found this seminar on the Fair tax:
http://wsbradio.com/ads/fairtax_webinar.html

[Silver Hand]

I'm still upset that Mike Huckabee lost the Republican nomination to McPain. Maybe if more people had known about the Fair Tax...

If Huck had gotten the nod and teamed up with Duncan Hunter (also a Fair Tax advocate) on the ticket, we could've given this country over 15 years to test out and refine the policy.

Senator McPain, please do the right thing: tap Huck for VP and retire in 4 years!

[Vigilante]

What's the diff between the flat tax idea and the fair tax idea?

If fair tax is simply a consumption tax, why does this burden the poor but not the rich? The rich don't buy anything? The more money you have the more you spend, seems the rich will pay more anyway.

As for government, I'd like a small government, for sure, but also a strong government, secure, well oiled and that works. I want a military to protect us from foreign attacks, to build public free-access structures and facilities like roads and parks, etc... In any case, I want some kind of government, and so I understand that I need to pay taxes to keep it. That's great. To make it 100% voluntary is a little odd cause who is going to put much effort in it? An automated, invisible, system seems best. And just because it's automated doesn't mean it's theft. However, because the government keeps raising it up and I'm getting sick of it, I'd like to say enough is enough and just cut it in half. I'd like to "voluntarily" say, "you take to much, stop it." And then if the money hungry politicians aren't making that much, then they can just cut back spending cause citizens don't want to spend that much.

What I'd like to be voluntary is where the money goes. I mean, it seems that I have no say in the matter, politicians continue to fight to steal more money from me to throw at their programs and increase their bank accounts. But what can you do? If I could say that I wanted my money to go to these four areas, then if all citizens did this, the "free stuff" that no citizens seem to want to support, will die off. This way I don't have mommy government telling me what I do and don't need, but rather I support what I want as a citizen instead. I don't want them deciding what's best for me. I don't need a government nanny coming in my home to tell me how to live.

Another aspect is, how much taxes are too much? I don't know, I want to support the basic functions of the government. I don't want to make government workers rich. I don't want to support stuff I don't care about. But how do I know how much taxes are too much? I certainly think some 30% is too much. At that point it really feels like you are working hard and loosing a good chunk of it. We already live in a nation where we have to have insurance for everything, insure our health, insure our vehicles, insure our lives, insure our credit cards, insure our homes and possessions, that takes a humongous chunk of our income as well. So what then? We work our butts off for $100 only to pay $90 of it to government and insurance and loan interests and other fees?

I think government, if it is going to assume the role of taking care of citizens, should do a few basic things:
Protect us from attack and serious harm (military, law enforcement).
Provide public amenities (roads, bridges, parks, etc...).
Provide access to health care (let us fix a bone or check out a pain or get a drug without going in to debt for life).
Do something about the crock of insurance. That is, guard us from powerful companies monopolizing commodities.

I guess I could go in to a rant on insurance, I hate it! We are so scared of future events that we spend all this money on insurance "just in case", then we may never use it, and we don't get one red cent back again. And then if you DO need to use it, you have to fight like mad to get them to pay up because they do everything they can to not give you anything. And on top of it, if you do successfully use it, they punish you by increasing rates, even if you've only taken back a minuscule percent of what you've paid in.
My friend paid $100 a month for 2 years on health insurance through work and never used it, then finally he had a throat problem and went into ER where the total was $250. Insurance originally would only touch $120 of it, but now a YEAR LATER he gets a letter from the insurance company saying they won't pay it. I mean what the heck? They've taken $2400 from him, gave him absolutely nothing for it except a false sense of security (it seems), and then finally gave a little back for the one medical emergency he had, only to say a year after the incident they won't pay it now, they've changed their mind. And what's the deal with people ripping people off when they DO have insurance? Let's face it, people have two rates, rate with insurance and rate without. Without insurance you might get a normal fee, but if you DO have insurance, they capitalize and charge 5 times as much. You get hit in the bumper without insurance? Maybe $300 to fix. You get hit in the bumper with insurance, suddenly you need a new bumper and two side panels, rear lights and a paint job for $5000. So somehow, it seems to me government should be involved in insurance somehow. It should protect us from emergencies that could financially ruin us for life because other people or companies charge outlandish fees.
Government shouldn't be in our crap daily, they should only be there when we need them. Someone breaks a law, we get attacked, emergencies happen, etc... We don't need them in our daily lives telling us how to live, we just need them when normal life goes wrong.

I may be wrong, but when do citizens get to say "I'm sick of paying so much, stop it!"

[joel]

I may be wrong, but when do citizens get to say "I'm sick of paying so much, stop it!"

Whenever we want. We just have to collectively demand it. Spread the word.

[dobrenen]

Every two years, but it would take four. Congress controls the taxes and we control the congress. Entire House could be replaced every two years but it would take four years for the people to change the congress since we would need to replace over 60% of the senate. (Senators have traditions in place that require over 60% get anything significant passed.)

Of course since over 50% of the population doesn't pay any significant taxes (or at least they don't think that they do) it will be nearly impossible to change the congress.

To begin with since income, social securtiy and medicare taxes are withheld from paychecks most people don't perceive of that as paying taxes.

Next, many people get a refund, so again they don't think they paid taxes.

Finally, check out the statistics on who pays taxes. The top 1% of INCOME earners pay 40% of the taxes. (check out the IRS statistics if you don't believe me), so that doesn't leave much for the bottom 51% to pay. Remember, if you have millions in investments (like most congressmen) you don't pay taxes until you spend it and then you usually can find a way to avoid taxes on your withdrawals.

Why would we want to change the tax system when we don't pay taxes to begin with?

My family is definitely middle class and our effective tax rate is under 3% except for social security and medicare.

What I understand that 99% of the American population doesn't are three things.

1. Only individuals can pay taxes. Tax a business, they raise their prices and pass it on to individuals.

2. All government spending is a tax on individuals. See point 1.

3. You can NEVER own property (house, car, etc) as long as there is a property tax. Don't believe me, try not paying your property tax and see who's living in your house and driving your car next year.

So, if you want to change the tax process you need to show people how much they are paying in taxes. The best way to start that education process would be to eliminate all withholding and send individuals a bill once a year for their income, social security and medicare taxes. I think there would be significant increase in heart attacks if people were opening up a bill from the governement asking them to send in 25% of their annual earnings that they already spent so they don't have it.

In fact, that would be a great marketing campaign for tax reform. Since you can either get or guess most people's income you could create a direct mail piece that looked like it was from the IRS. It would be personalized and would show something like this:

John Q. Public
Annual income: $20,000
Social Security: $3,000
Medicare: $2,000
Income Tax: $2,000

Please send a check payable to Uncle Sam for $7,000
Payment due immediately.

To follow up you would send out a bill from their state for another $1,000.

What do you think?

[Vigilante]

I like it.

I guess my main confusion is in just how a tax system should work. I want to pay taxes, because I want parks and roads and military and all that stuff. I don't want to pay to much (and who decides is to much?). And I want to decide where it goes. I don't want politicians creating random programs every week that need more money. I don't want to give tax money to programs I don't believe in, like Planned Parenthood for example. If I learn that my tax money is going toward programs like these I don't believe in, then I don't want to pay taxes, but of course I can't do that.
So government decides how much taxes I pay, which right now I feel is to much. Then government creates all the programs, or hands out the money to whomever it wishes.

I end up feeling like government is stealing from me to pay for abortions, by the end of it. And I don't like it one bit. So I'd like a system where I pay a moderate amount of taxes and send it only where I want.

The benefit of letting citizens choose where to spend tax money is obvious. Programs that the majority don't want will die off, which is fine, since the majority doesn't want them. How much money programs get will be directly proportional to how many Americans agree to support it.
Maybe that's wishful thinking, but it's a thought.

I'd still like to know how much taxes is to much. How do we decide?

[joel]

What do you think?
I think that's an excellent idea.

The reason that the government doesn't want to do that--the reason why they require employer withholding--is that they are afraid that large numbers of people will not pay, and they will be unable to enforce a large-scale non-compliance if tens of millions of people don't pay up.

But they could still handle it the way they handle the self-employed--by requiring 'estimated tax' payments, in place of employer withholding.

[joel]

I guess my main confusion is in just how a tax system should work. I want to pay taxes, because I want parks and roads and military and all that stuff.

If I decide I'd rather pay a private business to build my road or park, would you allow me to opt out of paying the government?


I'd still like to know how much taxes is to much. How do we decide?
I think a flat fee would be better than any kind of rate based on income or property. You simply get billed for your (equal) share of the cost for the year. The bill should also have an itemized list of charges indicating what portion went to what. Then let the people decide how much is too much.

[Seasanctuary]

I would call it ClearTax, SimpleTax, or something. Simplification is the main benefit.

'Fair' can mean different things to people:

* The same dollar value tax for everyone might be 'fair'. Everyone pays $5000 each year.

* The same percentage for everyone might be 'fair'. Everyone pays 30%.

* The same percentage for everyone after minimum standard of living is taken into account might be 'fair'. (Which is pretty much FairTax).

* The same dollar value not taxed every year might be 'fair'. Everyone lives on the same amount of personal money.

But we can pretty much all agree that the current system in which you are taxed a progressively greater percent the wealthier you are -- unless you can side-step the intent of the laws by paying someone else to manipulate the system -- is not doing a very good job of being 'fair' or simple.

----

The way I see it there are two ways of thinking about helping the poor: Those who want to make sure the minimum is raised to not leave anyone hungry or homeless but don't mind if there are rich people; and those who believe the only way to raise the minimum is to stop people from being rich.

You can guess which one fits Obama when he scolds Americans for eating as much as we want rather than focusing on making sure the starving elsewhere have enough to eat.

[Vigilante]

If I decide I'd rather pay a private business to build my road or park, would you allow me to opt out of paying the government?
In most cases I'd probably say yes. But this seems more like a state-government thing, because these choices would likely only affect you in your neighborhood or city anyway. So I'd say yes for the state taxes, but maybe no on certain national programs.
And even though most would say the private industry can do things better than government, that isn't 100% the case. One example I heard was national parks, the government does tend to do a good job of protecting nature. And another reason why, is there is no money in it for private industry to fence off land or make free-access parks or whatever.

I think a flat fee would be better than any kind of rate based on income or property. You simply get billed for your (equal) share of the cost for the year. The bill should also have an itemized list of charges indicating what portion went to what. Then let the people decide how much is too much.
While that does seem to sound good, it would seem to be troublesome for poorer people and pennies for the rich. While I don't think we should give handouts to poor necessarily, nor punish the rich just for being successful (if they are, legitimately so). We do have to take in account that some people don't get as much benefit as others. If somebody is living a low quality of life where few tax-paid benefits are available, and another person lives in the best uncle Sam has to offer, it doesn't seem as fair for both to pay the same. The difference between a nice city, efficient law enforcement, parks, schools, roads, ect... And then another town, low quality, dirty, less law enforcement, no clean parks, roads in disrepair, etc... And then both these people paying equal?
Sadly, we can't judge on that either, it's easier to do an income-based tax bracket than a city-based tax bracket, which would be much harder, not to mention kinda discriminatory in nature.

I think a flat percentage is not perfect either, because that doesn't seem as efficient as a flat amount based on spending. That is, to simply "get a bill" that says here is your share, versus a percentage which may or may not really cover actual expenses that year, and having to deal with refunds and overpaying taxes during the year, etc... Which, by the way, overpaying taxes in order to get a refund back is the worse investment you can make, being that the government has your money at zero interest all year. But anyway.

I don't agree with a flat amount for all. I don't agree with flat percentage. I DO agree with letting us have a level of control over the amount we pay, and where it goes.

One thing I have been fairly comfortable with is consumption tax, plain old sales tax. The more you spend, the more you pay, and I heard that this excludes commodities like groceries and gas maybe. I like that, because I can either consume less, or more. This depends on my income, which is kinda like a tax bracket, the more you make, the more you spend, the more taxes you pay, very similar. But even the rich can consume less if they want. This doesn't solve the problem of overpaying taxes, and it doesn't sound like we'll ever get refunds again, but I fear there is still plenty of room for abuse, as they can just jack up this tax as high as they want and it's all the same difference in the end. You pay 79 cents for a pack of gum, and 50 cents in tax, it would get a little crazy.

I tell you one thing, I do NOT want property taxes and so forth, cause I actually want to OWN stuff. And I don't want mandatory income tax, cause I want to keep what I work hard to earn. If taxes are going to come from somewhere else, it either needs to be from sales, or a bill at the end of the year with some easy way to pay. For example you get your bill for 2009 and it's $5000 or whatever, then some sort of payment plan is set for the following year to pay for it. So all 2010 you are paying 2009 taxes, and in 2011 you'll pay 2010, etc...


I don't know what the solution is.


Peace

[joel]

While that does seem to sound good, it would seem to be troublesome for poorer people and pennies for the rich.

If we think it's troublesome for poorer people, then there's an easy solution: cut government spending.


We do have to take in account that some people don't get as much benefit as others.
Sure, anywhere that it's possible to calculate that something is done for a particular individual, then they can be charged that portion of the cost. But as much as possible, there should be equal treatment under the law.


The difference between a nice city, efficient law enforcement, parks, schools, roads, ect... And then another town, low quality, dirty, less law enforcement, no clean parks, roads in disrepair, etc... And then both these people paying equal?
Why would the quality be so different? And if so, then don't fund them commonly, allow each city to fund its own stuff.

On this topic, here's what Ludwig von Mises had to say:
"A head tax that taxes every citizen equally and uniformly without any regard to the size of his income and wealth, falls more heavily upon those with more moderate means than upon those with more ample means. It restricts the production of the articles consumed by the masses more sharply than that of the articles mainly consumed by the wealthier citizens. On the other hand, it tends to curtail saving and capital accumulation less than a more burdensome taxation of the wealthier citizens does. It does not slow down the tendency toward a drop in the marginal productivity of capital goods as against the marginal productivity of labor to the same extent as does taxation discriminating against those with higher income and wealth, and consequently it does not to the same extent retard the tendency toward a rise in wage rates." (Human Action XXVIII).
It's important to consider all the effects. A non-equal tax tends to retard more the rise in wage rates, which hurts the poorer.


I tell you one thing, I do NOT want property taxes and so forth, cause I actually want to OWN stuff.
Amen.

[Vigilante]

If we think it's troublesome for poorer people, then there's an easy solution: cut government spending.
Wouldn't that be nice, probably won't happen if the Obaminator gets in there, we'll be paying more. That's what they say. I can see him now saying......"moh money".

[dobrenen]

Sounds like those participating in this forum are "getting it."

Most of the posters are still missing something.

They are accepting the false premise that government should be doing anything beyond that which we cannot do ourself.

Vigilante says he doesn't want his taxes to go to Planned Parenthood. He should more properly say that government has no business being involved in birth control to begin with!!!!!!!!!!!

Seasanctuary thinks government parks are nice. A bigger backyard that I OWN would be nicer.

Our founding fathers were smart, but not smart enough. They made one mistake - they assumed that people aren't inherently lazy.

Well actually they made another one - they assumed people don't want to remain ignorant.

Laziness and ignorance are America's greatest challenges.

Since the government will take care of us we don't save for our retirement or exercise to keep healthy.

Since the MainStream Media will tell us what to think we don't think for ourselves.

Better stop now, I'm getting a bit preachy. Keep up the good work folks you are on your way to eliminating ignorance.

[Vigilante]

If ignorance were eliminated from 90% of society, would that change anything coming from the politicians and government spending?

I mean, I know more stuff, but I still feel powerless to change anything. "Getting into politics", I find, takes more than reading headlines, it is a big hobby. More time than most people have.

I hate the idea of entitlement, that somehow the government owes us handouts. Heck, I'll take handouts, but I'm paying for it, so it's not much of a handout in the end. I mean, I don't know.

[dobrenen]

One person at a time. Slow, but eventually successful.

Since most people are apathetic when a politician receives a "personal" communication from one of their constituents they place great value on it. A "personal" communication is something that is not part of a mass campaign. Start by calling your representatives local office. Find out how they like to hear from voters and send in your thoughts on one topic at a time. Don't want your taxes going to Planned Parenthood, send a note about that topic only. Short and to the point.

Then find out when the politician will be in town. Go at meet him at his office. Call for an appointment. You'd be surprised how easy it may be to talk with them. Again, one or two topics.

And don't forget money. That's what they live for. If you are giving money to them and they vote to fund Planned Parenthood, send a short note explaining that you've sent a donation to their challenger's campaign who is more in line with your values. Money talks.

Think one vote doesn't count? There is some organization called Christian Exodus or something like that. They had a plan to influence South Carolina politics. They figured that it would only take a couple of thousand families moving into specific areas of the state to tip the balance to their point of view. Of course it would take a lot more in California or New York, but check out Louisiana. They have a conservative governor that is making headway because the people get it.

An hour a week of contacting your representatives would make a big difference. Find 10 like minded people and you'd be surprised what you can accomplish.

[Vigilante]

Sounds like a plan! Except I don't know where to start. Who all my reps are, how to contact them, what are all the bills on the books that I can complain about and share my opinion, where to write in voting polls online or sign petitions, etc... etc...

[joel]

One benefit of the "Fair Tax", is that by eliminating the income tax, the government would have no more excuse for demanding to know how much income you make or where it came from. The government has no business collecting that information, any more than it has any business listening to our phone calls or observing us on video cameras.

In fact, the Forth Amendment to the Constitution should be sufficient to rule the income tax unconstitutional. The government should not be able to demand information about your income without a Warrant, "upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation".