Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

aceventura3 · 08-01-2007, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

ace....you've, IMO, swallowed a line of "sheee-uttt" bought and paid for by the Richard Mellon Scaifes/Olin Foundation/CNP Billionaires who have created the cato/heritage/aei "think tanks" who inject heaping helpings of bullshit into the American psyche that persuade so many to vote against their best economic interests....

If "they" invest in convincing you to vote in ways that result in them paying less, either you will pay more, or, as we've seen in this decade, US Treasury debt simply increases hugely, and the tax bill gets transferrred to our grandchildren to pay "someday"......

Is it even possible to overtax war profiteers like Neil and William Bush, and Erik Prince? I don't see how that is possible.....

Here's some "stuff" that shapes my opinions:

I read the link from Fact Check. Seems you cherry picked data to support your position (something I am often accused of) and ignored this:

Quote:

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. The size of any such gains is disputed, however; Americans for Fair Taxation consistently chooses from among the most optimistic growth projections.

Seems like their biggest concern is whether the Fair Tax is 30% or 23%. Based on that analysis they seem to miss the looking at the bigger picture relative to developing a fairer tax system. A system that isn't so easily "gamed" by rich people.

Here is a portion of the Fair Tax rebuttal from their website:

Quote:

As the FairTax gains more national attention, questions have again arisen about whether the FairTax rate is 23 percent or 30 percent. In the toxic environment that often accompanies public policy debates, FairTax.org has even been accused by some of misleading the public, even though full descriptions of "tax-inclusive" and "tax-exclusive" calculations abound on our Web site. We hope the following explanation puts all such questions to rest -- at last.

Let’s use an example to illustrate the difference between tax-inclusive and tax-exclusive tax rates.

Assume there is a worker named Joe who earns $125 and spends all of his earnings. Let’s further assume that the government requires him to pay $25 in taxes.

If the government put a tax on Joe’s income, he would earn $125 before tax and would have $100 after tax to spend at the General Store. Thus, Joe has to earn $125 to have $100 to spend. Joe would also have to file an income tax return.

If the government put a tax on what Joe spends, he would earn $125 and would have $125 to spend at the store. Of the $125 paid by Joe to the storekeeper, $100 would be for the goods he bought at the store and $25 would be taxes that the storekeeper would send to the government. Joe would not have to file a tax return, as the storekeeper sends the tax in to the government.

Either way, Joe pays $25 in taxes and the government gets $25 in taxes. With a tax on income, Joe pays the $25 directly to the government, and with the tax on spending (sales tax), he pays the $25 in taxes indirectly when he buys something from the General Store. The General Store sends the tax that Joe paid to the government.

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServ..._053107_tomato

Here is more stuff:

Quote:

The FairTax preserves the overall progressivity of the federal tax burden. The FairTax not only lowers remaining average lifetime net tax rates, it also maintains and, indeed, enhances overall progressivity in the tax system. Consider middle-aged married households. The FairTax average lifetime tax rate is very low – only 1.5 percent – for the couple with $20,000 in annual earnings, and much higher – 20.5 percent – for the couple with $500,000 in annual earnings. The reduction in the tax rate is proportionately much greater at the lower end of the earnings distribution than at the high end. In switching to the FairTax, the $20,000- earning couple experiences an 86 percent cut in their average tax rate, whereas the $500,000- earning couple experiences a 42 percent cut. The FairTax: A very progressive long-run outcome
To get another meaningful picture of how persons in various income groups fare under the FairTax in the aggregate, Dr. Kotlikoff models the dynamic macroeconomic and microeconomic effects of replacing the income tax system with the FairTax. His model considers three income classes within each generation. It compares what the economy is like under the FairTax versus what it would be like if the current system were to remain in place. This approach gives a realistic view of the impact of America’s aging population, coupled with high and growing health and pension benefits that necessitate much higher payroll taxes, with potentially damaging effects on the U.S. economy. The FairTax offers a solution to this dismal economic future.

http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/FairTax-F...cts-070122.pdf

O.k. maybe the Fair Tax is not the solution, perhaps it will never pass. But here are words from a member of the Mises economic think tank, who does not support the Fair Tax.

Quote:

FairTax proponents are correct in their assessment of the Internal Revenue Code:

The current U.S. income tax code is widely regarded by just about everyone as unfair, complex, wasteful, confusing, and costly. Businesses and other organizations spend more than six billion hours each year complying with the federal tax code. Estimated compliance costs conservatively top $225 billion annually—costs that are ultimately embedded in retail prices paid by consumers.

The Internal Revenue Code cannot simply be "fixed," which is amply demonstrated by more than 35 years of attempted tax code reform, each round resulting in yet more complexity and unrelenting, page-after-page, mind-numbing verbiage (now exceeding 54,000 pages containing more than 2.8 million words).

http://www.mises.org/story/1814

No matter what side you are on regarding the Fair Tax, reasonable people recognize the problems with our current tax code.

Quote:

I am not impressed with "Rich Dad, Poor Dad".....everyone cannot "Double down" and "roll the dice", as a reliable path to "riches"......but the book's author and I agree on two points:

Neither am I, however he does make a good point about how the average person doesn't get "it". The "it" being income focused rather than asset focused.

Try the "Millionaire Next Door" too. It will help you understand who "us" and "them" really are.