Tax Manifesto rough draft

[ccb056]

so, I have to write this for english, and I want your criticism (its a rough draft)

The current criteria and practice of the United States tax code is a biased, unfair, racist, an ineffective punishment of all American people.

Most Americans do not realize the many ways we are taxed every day.

There are two main models of an Income Tax structure. They are a flat tax and a graduated tax. In a flat tax, all taxpayers pay a fixed percentage of their income to the government. Within the graduated tax structure, there exist two subcategories: progressive tax and regressive tax. In a progressive tax structure, the percentage of the income taxed increases as the income increases. In a regressive tax structure, the percentage of the income taxed decreases as the income increases.

In the American tax system, a progressive system, the more income a person makes, the higher his tax rate is. Not only will a white male pay more money in income tax than a black female, he will be giving away a higher percentage of his salary as well. Any level headed equal rights activist can see that this is grossly unfair.

The second version of the graduated tax structure, the regressive tax, is hardly fair either. Although a low income person will pay fewer taxes than a high income person, the low income person is paying a higher percentage of his salary. At first glance, the average American would say that there does not exist a regressive tax system in the United States. Upon closer inspection, that statement is proved incorrect. Sales tax is a prime example of the unfair taxation against low income people. If two people spend the same amount of money, but one person makes threefold what the other makes a year, the lower income person is paying a higher percentage of his salary in sales tax than the high income person. Any level headed equal rights activist can see that this is grossly unfair.

In a flat tax all taxpayers, regardless of income, pay the same percentage of their income to the government. This tax structure appears to be fair on the surface, but after looking closer, it is just as unfair and prejudiced as the other schemes. Even by paying the same percentage, a higher income person will have to pay more money than a lower income person. This is an unfair punishment of the higher income person, and disrupts the equality between the higher income and lower income people. Two people cannot clearly be equal if they have to pay unequal amounts of money.

Other than the income tax, which unfairly punishes all people under any practice, there exists many other common forms of unjust taxation.

Retirement tax, commonly referred to as Social Security is very simply a tax placed upon all working Americans to pay for non-working Americans. This is quite visibly an unfair and unequal tax. It is not the employed peopleâ??s responsibility to support themselves along with the unemployed. This act of attempting to make everyone equal by treating them unequal is unjust to not only the worker, but also to the un-employed.

Capital gains tax is an unfair tax that occurs when two private parties make an exchange. It simply is the act of the government masquerading as the middleman and taking a piece of the pie. When one individual sells an asset to another individual, the government intrudes on the transaction, and embezzles part of the profit. It is not just that one be punished by a third party for participating in a private transaction.

Property tax may be the cleverest of all the governmentâ??s taxation plots. It essentially provides the government with a never ending flow of money. All one has to do to participate in this rape is to simply own land. Each year, all owners of land must pay money to the government. If you live on a family farm, and the land has belonged to your family for generation, not only was tax paid when the land was bought, but every year since a tax has been imposed simply for ownership of the land. The government can and does make quite a profit on land that was purchased over a hundred years ago.

Another form of taxation exists. It is far more elusive than any of the previously mentioned forms. This form is taxation affects all people, and unfortunately, very few people know about it. This form of taxation is known as inflation. Since taxation, in its simplest form, is the act of the government taking money away from an individual, inflation can be considered as such. Inflation is the act of the government making the money an individual has worth less. By making the money worth less, the government is essentially taking the money away. Most people think that to calculate inflation a very complicated formula is needed. The government has instilled that notion on us through the use of state run schools. The truth of the matter is inflation can be calculated very simply by taking the number of dollars in circulation for one year and comparing the number of dollars in circulation the next year. If the government tells the Federal Reserve to double the amount of dollars in circulation, then prices double. However, this does not take place instantaneously, the effects of the creation of the dollars isnâ??t seen until the government uses their new, free dollars and spends them. The inflation is seen after the dollars enter the market, being spent by the government.

Most Americanâ??s do not realize the true root cause of the establishment of the American tax system.

Both the right and left on the political spectrum need taxes to operate. Neither one will absolve all forms of taxation. The tax money that is stolen from the American people is not spent on the American people. America is almost eight trillion dollars in debt. The majority of these tax dollars are used to pay other countries, to get America out of debt. It is not reasonable to expect the American people to work for the politicians who made mistakes in order to bail this country out of the hole.

It is not reasonable to grant a third party the ownership of a hard working Americanâ??s pay. The money an American makes belongs to that American, it is criminal for a third party to hijack a transaction between two private entities and claim a piece for itself.

If Americanâ??s see the need to help fellow Americanâ??s then they should be free to spend their money as they desire. The use of their money should not be determined by a criminal, rather, let the people decide how to use their money.

http://www.rightandleft.org/about7.html

[TheCope]

"In the American tax system, a progressive system, the more income a person makes, the higher his tax rate is. Not only will a white male pay more money in income tax than a black female, he will be giving away a higher percentage of his salary as well. Any level headed equal rights activist can see that this is grossly unfair."

You might want to elaborate on that paragraph so it is not viewed as needlessly inflammatory... not to mention the fact that I work with 3 black women who make at least double the amount of money I do.

I know it's a rough draft but I don't really see the point to the work. It seems like a whine fest with no real solution other than â??revolution!â?

[fliptw]

You are lumping all forms of taxation together, and bashing it without being specific on the rationale behind specific forms of taxation, and not really going anywhere with it.

I agree with cope. Pick something and support it.

[Gooberman]

In a flat tax all taxpayers, regardless of income, pay the same percentage of their income to the government. This tax structure appears to be fair on the surface, but after looking closer, it is just as unfair and prejudiced as the other schemes. Even by paying the same percentage, a higher income person will have to pay more money than a lower income person. This is an unfair punishment of the higher income person, and disrupts the equality between the higher income and lower income people. Two people cannot clearly be equal if they have to pay unequal amounts of money.

Man A: Makes 20,000 a year
Man B: Makes 300,000 a year

They each are taxed 15% of their salery.

Does man A have significantly adjust his life style to accomidate? Yes.

Does man B have to significantly adjust his life style to accomidate? No.

[Will Robinson]

In a flat tax all taxpayers, regardless of income, pay the same percentage of their income to the government. This tax structure appears to be fair on the surface, but after looking closer, it is just as unfair and prejudiced as the other schemes. Even by paying the same percentage, a higher income person will have to pay more money than a lower income person. This is an unfair punishment of the higher income person, and disrupts the equality between the higher income and lower income people. Two people cannot clearly be equal if they have to pay unequal amounts of money.

Man A: Makes 20,000 a year
Man B: Makes 300,000 a year

They each are taxed 15% of their salery.

Does man A have significantly adjust his life style to accomidate? Yes.

Does man B have to significantly adjust his life style to accomidate? No.

That depends on how you define "significant" adjustments....

[Will Robinson]

In the American tax system, a progressive system, the more income a person makes, the higher his tax rate is. Not only will a white male pay more money in income tax than a black female, he will be giving away a higher percentage of his salary as well. Any level headed equal rights activist can see that this is grossly unfair.

You should drop the race factor because race does not determine what a person pays in tax. Yes racism has led to a disproportionate number of black people living in poverty and thereby paying less tax but that isn't a result of any tax code. Without changing a thing in your example or the tax code the roles could be reversed if blacks were in the majority and had held whites as slaves....

So your statement sounds like a complaint that whites get an unfair tax burden when the burden is actually determined by income level not race.

[Gooberman]

In a flat tax all taxpayers, regardless of income, pay the same percentage of their income to the government. This tax structure appears to be fair on the surface, but after looking closer, it is just as unfair and prejudiced as the other schemes. Even by paying the same percentage, a higher income person will have to pay more money than a lower income person. This is an unfair punishment of the higher income person, and disrupts the equality between the higher income and lower income people. Two people cannot clearly be equal if they have to pay unequal amounts of money.

Man A: Makes 20,000 a year
Man B: Makes 300,000 a year

They each are taxed 15% of their salery.

Does man A have significantly adjust his life style to accomidate? Yes.

Does man B have to significantly adjust his life style to accomidate? No.

That depends on how you define "significant" adjustments....

No it doesn't. The less you have, the more every percent means.

Living on $17,000 as opposed to $20,000 is alot harder of a difference--and requires more lifestyle adjustments--then living on $255,000 as opposed to $300,000. I really can't imagine that someone who made that much money would even notice....

[Will Robinson]

In a flat tax all taxpayers, regardless of income, pay the same percentage of their income to the government. This tax structure appears to be fair on the surface, but after looking closer, it is just as unfair and prejudiced as the other schemes. Even by paying the same percentage, a higher income person will have to pay more money than a lower income person. This is an unfair punishment of the higher income person, and disrupts the equality between the higher income and lower income people. Two people cannot clearly be equal if they have to pay unequal amounts of money.

Man A: Makes 20,000 a year
Man B: Makes 300,000 a year

They each are taxed 15% of their salery.

Does man A have significantly adjust his life style to accomidate? Yes.

Does man B have to significantly adjust his life style to accomidate? No.

That depends on how you define "significant" adjustments....

No it doesn't. The less you have, the more every percent means.

Living on $17,000 as opposed to $20,000 is alot harder of a difference--and requires more lifestyle adjustments--then living on $255,000 as opposed to $300,000. I really can't imagine that someone who made that much money would even notice....

It just depends on how expensive their respective lifestyles are.
If his expenses for the lifestyle he's accustomed to are 15 times the expenses of the other man then they would be equally affected...

4 kids attending ivy league schools...a mortgage on a million dollar house...2 ex wives on alimony....BOOM he's screwed!
What you're really doing is deciding for him how much money is enough. Your telling him that if he doesn't try to live too comfortably he won't notice the tax burden....

[Foil]

Not only will a white male pay more money in income tax than a black female, he will be giving away a higher percentage of his salary as well.

At the very least, you need some clarification here. Because you neglected to mention anything about averages or exceptions, this phrase implies that a white male will always be taxed at a higher rate.

The current criteria and practice of the United States tax code is a biased, unfair, racist, an ineffective punishment of all American people.

Ouch. A little angry, ya think?

Trust me, tone down the rhetoric a bit. As a former teacher, I can tell you that even if I don't agree with you, I will still give you a much better grade (and more respect) if your paper is more professional and logical.

The less you have, the more every percent means.

Agreed!

Income level makes a huge difference regarding how much tax burden one can (and should) bear.

I can say this from experience, too, since I've been on both "sides of the track", where I've had enough financial freedom (i.e. enough income) to make the necessary adjustments, and also where I've been stretched to beyond my financial limits. If it had been a flat tax system during the "financially stretched" period, there's no way I could have ever made it.

Now, the question of how progressive the tax system should be is another matter altogether...

[Gooberman]

4 kids attending ivy league schools...a mortgage on a million dollar house...2 ex wives on alimony....BOOM he's screwed!.....What you're really doing is deciding for him how much money is enough. Your telling him that if he doesn't try to live too comfortably he won't notice the tax burden....

No, what I am saying is that deciding if your kid goes to regular college instead of Ivy league college---is no where near the same sacrafice as deciding if your kid does or does not go to college.

We are talking about the sacrafice the government asks you to make via taxes. Per percent, the poor have to sacrafice more.

[Mobius]

Heh. I think maybe you don't like taxes of any form. A logical extrapolation of your stance implies anarchy - which for some, like the Somalis, is the way life is.

I don't think you'd like it.

I always hear the classic quote "Taxes are unamerican".

Well, taxes are necessary, and they can ALWAYS be said to be unfair, depending on who you are. It's simply not possible to create a tax system which is "fair".

In NZ we have no capital gains tax at all. So that makes all forms of investment a good idea for residents. However, you can say it's unfair because poorer people can't make the kinds of investments which can return a capital gain.

Let's get one thing straight: poor people will ALWAYS be poor. You can return a portion of their taxes in welfare (NZ does this A LOT) until such time as the poor literally pay no (income) tax at all - and this is what happens in NZ too - but they never escape the indirect taxes: more than 50% of the price of petrol is tax; 12.5% GST on ALL purchases (except domestic dwellings and financial transactions).

So, you can reduce the load on poor people, but they remain poor.

This is the way life is.

One of the biggest issues with Tax-And-Spend policies (which NZ has) is that it removes the decisions from tax payers about what to do with their money. Our government taxes are very high, and you get lots of money back if you have children, or are on a low salary level.

Of course, the government is extremely inefficient at the redistribution of tax funds. So, if you are taxed a dollar, and the govt decides you are to get that dollar back, you are lucky to see 60 cents of it, because 40 cents is taken up with paying a shizload of govt employees.

To my way of thinking, this is the worst kind of tax policy. If you want salary earners to have more money, then simply reduce the amount you tax them. This leaves people to decide for themselves what to do with it, instead of having the government stomp all over your income.

As a single male in NZ, paying to top tax rate of 36% on earnings over $60,000 a year, I'm one of the 10% of salary earners that support the other 90%. About the only government provided service I use is roading, and I pay more in tax each week than low income earners MAKE in a week.

Yet, I realise someone has to pay for social services in this country, and right now, I'm one of the unlucky ones.

In a year or two, I'll be having children (hopefully) with Emma. (Baby Mobiuses! EEK) When that happens, I'll start getting funded to have children. I'll get 60 cents back of that dollar I was taxed. *sigh*

Arguably, the US tax system is fairer than in New Zealand: you are free to starve. Whereas in NZ, the majority of the population believe it's the government's responsibility to ensure no one starves, or lives under bridges.

Fortunately for us right now, unemployment levels are the lowest since WWII, so the cost of doing this is relatively low in comparison to 20 years ago, when it was quite literally, a very real drag on the rest of the country.

So you see, no system is EVER fair.

And of course, you are always free to emigrate to a country where the tax system is "fairer" (read as "Fairer to ME").

[Will Robinson]

4 kids attending ivy league schools...a mortgage on a million dollar house...2 ex wives on alimony....BOOM he's screwed!.....What you're really doing is deciding for him how much money is enough. Your telling him that if he doesn't try to live too comfortably he won't notice the tax burden....

No, what I am saying is that deciding if your kid goes to regular college instead of Ivy league college---is no where near the same sacrafice as deciding if your kid does or does not go to college.

We are talking about the sacrafice the government asks you to make via taxes. Per percent, the poor have to sacrafice more.

Gooberman I understand your point but your perception is any college is enough....some people would think if their kids don't go to the best college then their kids have been deprived of the necessary opportunity...
They base their perception on the lifestyle they are accustomed to just like you do, since you come from a different lifestyle you assume theirs in one of excess where the man with 300,000 per year would say he's not making enough to get the lifstyle he wants.
And somewhere in mexico is a village of 300 people who would move up to the rich neighborhood off of your poor mans 20,000 per year! They would say he makes too much...

Why does your poor man even think he deserves to send his kids to college if he can't afford it? Why doesn't he think he needs to earn the 300,00 per year before he even thinks of doing such a thing?

[Testiculese]

Income? I don't have income, and neither do you. Which dictionary are you using?

[Zuruck]

Kind of disgusting Will, that you would defend that kind of position. I am reminded of my previous boss and his wife, they loved Bush because of the tax cuts, they complained that they lost so much money, yet they lived in a mansion with a Viper, Mercedes, their kids drove luxury SUVs. They never worried about money, it's not about deciding how much someone can live on. But Goober's right, 3000 when you only make 20000 is a lot different than 255000 when you make 300000. Hell, tax me at 50% if I get that salary each year. I can make 150k go a long ways. Why should a poor man's kid not be able to go to school just because they can't afford it? I thought intelligence was more important than money in education, you must have come from the other side of the tracks on that one. Legacy, inheritance, what did you get? And don't pull the "I worked hard and didn't ask for anything" b.s, because if you did, you would not defend the rich man making more in one month than a poor man in an entire year.

[Fusion pimp]

Zuruck,
I cannot for the life of me figure out why our views are so different on **every** subject.

People are not entitled to have the best of anything. Having the best is the reward of hard work. Everyone has the same opportunity to create the lifestyle they chose. Sure, there are exceptions, but even those exceptions are riding on the backs of someone elses hard work through inheritance, etc.
I'm not going to bore with the "we were so poor" stories, but the truth is, we were poor. Was it hard? sure was..120 hours(no joke!) a week landed me in the hospitol. It was worth every minute I spend there and I would do it again in a heartbeat.

Why should a poor man's kid not be able to go to school just because they can't afford it?

Zuruck, what you're really asking is- Why should the poor mans kid have to work his way through school? Why is he entitled to a free pass without blood, sweat & tears? Someone in the family had to work for the rich kids money.It may not have been him and he may be very fortunate, but someone worked for it.

I thought intelligence was more important than money in education

If the kid's smart, he'll figure out a way to put himself through college. Why/how is that wrong? I cannot figure out what has happened to peoples' willingness to work. Why is *his* education someone elses responsibility? When you get right down to it, that's exactly what you're saying.
Why does someone who choses not to provide a certain lifestyle deserve the same rewards as the person willing to work for that lifestyle?

That's textbook Communism..

Help me out here, Z.

B-

[Will Robinson]

Kind of disgusting Will, that you would defend that kind of position. I am reminded of my previous boss and his wife, they loved Bush because of the tax cuts, they complained that they lost so much money, yet they lived in a mansion with a Viper, Mercedes, their kids drove luxury SUVs. They never worried about money, it's not about deciding how much someone can live on. But Goober's right, 3000 when you only make 20000 is a lot different than 255000 when you make 300000. Hell, tax me at 50% if I get that salary each year. I can make 150k go a long ways. Why should a poor man's kid not be able to go to school just because they can't afford it? I thought intelligence was more important than money in education, you must have come from the other side of the tracks on that one. Legacy, inheritance, what did you get? And don't pull the "I worked hard and didn't ask for anything" b.s, because if you did, you would not defend the rich man making more in one month than a poor man in an entire year.

You are missing the point Zuruck. When I asked: "Why does your poor man even think he deserves to send his kids to college if he can't afford it? Why doesn't he think he needs to earn the 300,00 per year before he even thinks of doing such a thing?"
I didn't mean it as a rhetorical insult to someones position...I mean it literally!

If you answer the questions you will find yourself deciding how much money is enough and how much is excess. But when you do that you have to decide based on no rules, no law, no precident...you just arbitrarily decide how much is enough based on your own perception as wealth relates to you.

A poor man in america is living well above middle class in many other places. So why use the standard Gooberman offers with $20,000 as to little and $300,000 being too much? Why not say that $20,000 is rich? Over 90% of the world would agree!

The answer is because in that example Gooberman decided how much is enough....
But why is Goobermans example the benchmark for determining how much is enough?
Why isn't someone elses benchmark, that would put say... $300,000 at lower to middle class just as valid?
It's all relative. It's all about perspective.

[Foil]

It's all relative. It's all about perspective.

Yes, it is. But it's still about weighting the tax burden toward those who are more financially able to handle it (within reason, and not over-burdening taxpayers as much as possible).

So for example, if the incomes in "Country X" are a tenth of what they are in the US, you still weight the tax toward the person who makes $20,000, so it eases the burden on the ones who make $1,200.

Doing this is not "arbitrarily deciding who has too little/too much", it's weighting the tax burden appropriately within the given system.

You can also look at this on a global level - the countries with the most resources should shoulder a heavier load when it comes to assisting other countries in need. (Please note that I'm not trying to say the US "hasn't done enough" somehow... I'm not saying that at all.)

It's just a basic moral principle - that there is a general ethical obligation for those who have more resources to help those who don't. (Of course, you can get into discussions of people who refuse to help themselves, etc., but I don't want to start that up again...)

[Zuruck]

Barry, I think we have a love hate relationship. I'm quite certain that we actually see things very similar, yet, we speak and interpret those very things quite differently. I do know that hard work is they key to everything. I myself have worked since I was 14, both in Colorado and now in Chicago.

You say that a smart kid will find a way through college. My family was not rich, my father left long ago leaving my mother with three kids on little more than a small pittence. Do you think I had any chance for an Ivy League education? Even with all the student loans through the govt I could get, I would still be about 20,000 a year short. 20,000! Even with multiple scholarships, I would still be roughly 10,000 short. Now how is that fair? College admissions doesn't care how hard you worked for that money, they simply care if you can make the bill. If you cannot, and someone of the same intelligence can, who do they choose? How is that fair?

And for the record, I am a single white male with no dependents. I pay far more of a tax percentage than most on this board. I lose roughly 35% of my income to taxes and do I complain? No, I didn't even want tax cuts, they did absolutely nothing for me. I have made an extra 3 dollars a paycheck since Bush has been in office.

Will, some people cannot make 300,000 a year. It's not a question of valor or hard work, it's a question of logistics. My boss example again, he didn't need the extra taxed money, his life was simple before, yet his greed clouded his mind into believing that. And now, the debt soars to new levels, sooner or later, that will come back to haunt. Do you want the Chinese owning that much of America? I don't, I'd like Americans to own America.

[Will Robinson]

...Will, some people cannot make 300,000 a year. It's not a question of valor or hard work, it's a question of logistics. My boss example again, he didn't need the extra taxed money, his life was simple before, yet his greed clouded his mind into believing that. And now, the debt soars to new levels, sooner or later, that will come back to haunt. Do you want the Chinese owning that much of America? I don't, I'd like Americans to own America.

I don't see how anything I've said proposes anyone accrue any debt. All I've said is that any assesment of what is or isn't wealth is relative to what you are accustomed to and how you gauge it from that perspective. I'm not rich from my perspective and I feel the bite of my tax burden just like someone else who is either in a lower or higher income bracket.
20% is 20%....30% is 30%....

Can I afford some degree of comfort at my income level that someone at a lower level can't after we both pay our 20%....sure. But is that because I don't pay enough tax or because of my additional income?

[Dedman]

You say that a smart kid will find a way through college. My family was not rich, my father left long ago leaving my mother with three kids on little more than a small pittence. Do you think I had any chance for an Ivy League education? Even with all the student loans through the govt I could get, I would still be about 20,000 a year short. 20,000! Even with multiple scholarships, I would still be roughly 10,000 short. Now how is that fair? College admissions doesn't care how hard you worked for that money, they simply care if you can make the bill. If you cannot, and someone of the same intelligence can, who do they choose? How is that fair?

Life ain't fair kid. I would have liked an "Ivy League" education myself. Since I also couldn't afford one, I set my sights on a less expensive school. Guess what, I went to school entirely on student loans. It can be done. Stop whining.

[ccb056]

[quote="TheCope"]
You might want to elaborate on that paragraph so it is not viewed as needlessly inflammatory... not to mention the fact that I work with 3 black women who make at least double the amount of money I do.

I know it's a rough draft but I don't really see the point to the work. It seems like a whine fest with no real solution other than â??revolution!â?

[ccb056]

You are lumping all forms of taxation together, and bashing it without being specific on the rationale behind specific forms of taxation, and not really going anywhere with it.

I agree with cope. Pick something and support it.

I go into the major forms of taxation and explain why they are wrong in seperate paragraphs, did you read the entire paper?

[ccb056]

Man A: Makes 20,000 a year
Man B: Makes 300,000 a year

They each are taxed 15% of their salery.

Does man A have significantly adjust his life style to accomidate? Yes.

Does man B have to significantly adjust his life style to accomidate? No.

Right, and if their was no tax, then that question would never be asked. I am not for a flat tax system for the same reasons you are against it. Frankly, no tax system is correct, so instead of having a corrupt system, it would be better to not have a system.

[ccb056]

You should drop the race factor because race does not determine what a person pays in tax. Yes racism has led to a disproportionate number of black people living in poverty and thereby paying less tax but that isn't a result of any tax code. Without changing a thing in your example or the tax code the roles could be reversed if blacks were in the majority and had held whites as slaves....

So your statement sounds like a complaint that whites get an unfair tax burden when the burden is actually determined by income level not race.

I disagree, large, publicly traded corperations hire people based on race, and the primary source of income and therefore taxes is a job. So, if the job aquistion process is racist, then transitively the tax system is racist.

[Stryker]

Dump the whole tax system and move to a sales tax on everything but basic foods and gas.

Not like it'll ever happen, but hey--it solves a LOT of problems involved in taxing people.

[Testiculese]

Dump the whole tax system and move to a sales tax on everything but basic foods and gas.

Not like it'll ever happen, but hey--it solves a LOT of problems involved in taxing people.

Uh, did you not notice, there is a sales tax on everything but food and clothing (And some online sales).

[Hostile]

Dump the whole tax system and move to a sales tax on everything but basic foods and gas.

Not like it'll ever happen, but hey--it solves a LOT of problems involved in taxing people.

Uh, did you not notice, there is a sales tax on everything but food and clothing (And some online sales).

No he means a FEDERAL sales tax. There is no official federal sales tax because we have income taxes. Although you pay sales taxes federally, you just don't see them. This issue I feel extremely strong about and I want you all to take a look at this:

http://www.fairtax.org

and here this goes straight to the FAQ which is full of all kinds of enlightening information:

http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/faq.html

The income tax system is a drag on our economy in a way that is unmatched. Seriously, read through the FAQ to get a feel for how income taxes and the IRS system waste hundreds of billions of dollars each year without contributing wealth to the economy. Keep in mind that the Fair Tax system is not a tax cut or increase, but merely a different way to raise the revenue of the federal government at its current level.

We have a consumption economy and we really should have a consumption tax.

[Hostile]

The point of the paper is "The current criteria and practice of the United States tax code is a biased, unfair, racist, an ineffective punishment of all American people."

That is just it. There was no real point or counterpoint just a bunch of rambling on about what a drag a bunch of different stuff is. A bunch of people said it here earlier. You need to have some sort of 'point' or problem that you recognize and then offer at least a partial solution to it. You have merely said in a nutshell:

Taxes.....They suck and they are racist......without any real evidence or solution.