DescentBB

My Opinion

In Oregon we don't have a sales Tax. and the Oregon legislature has been trying to get one voted in for years, and has never passed a vote of the people. the general consensus is, this will just be ANOTHER tax and they will not do away with or lower the income tax. IMO this is due to a total distrust of Politicians and the Political process that encourages that line of thinking. they already want so much of our money that the people feel this is just a grab for more of it.
while I believe in the principle of a sales or consumption tax. I have a total distrust for Washington. and unlike at a state level where an issue can be put on a ballot and voted into law, we do not have that power at the Federal level.
We are totally at the mercy of those that are elected. we are trusting to Fox to guard the hen-house and hoping we'll still have all our chickens when we wake up in the morning.

null0010 wrote:I still don't think it'll ever happen.

If you took the time to learn about all it has to offer it might be of more interest to you and if it was something you were interested in it would have one more supporter and therefore its chances of passing would have improved.

Spidey wrote:“Passing the original 16th Amendment and the income tax wasn’t easy and repealing the income tax and the 16th Amendment won’t be easy either.
That is why the FairTax has undertaken to build a grassroots movement and grassroots alliances to support the effort.”

Yea, but with the attitude promoters seem to have about this idea…I doubt you will be able to gather enough support to move it anywhere.

Myself as an example, I already advocate consumption based taxes, but when I discuss this plan, I feel like I’m a heretic or something.

If you can’t get guys like me on board…good luck.

How have you been made to feel like a heretic? I know in the discussions here on the DBB you seemed to be focused on how it wasn't really wiping out the underground economy at least in regards to people buying and selling goods while avoiding the local and/or state sales tax. Those taxes have nothing to do with the collection of federal tax revenue or the FairTax. You also said you don't like the phrase "pre-bate" for the monthly rebate given in advance.

Is there some other interaction with someone promoting the FairTax that has made you feel the way you do or was it just the discussion here that resulted in that?

CUDA wrote:My Opinion

In Oregon we don't have a sales Tax. and the Oregon legislature has been trying to get one voted in for years, and has never passed a vote of the people. the general consensus is, this will just be ANOTHER tax and they will not do away with or lower the income tax. IMO this is due to a total distrust of Politicians and the Political process that encourages that line of thinking. they already want so much of our money that the people feel this is just a grab for more of it.
while I believe in the principle of a sales or consumption tax. I have a total distrust for Washington. and unlike at a state level where an issue can be put on a ballot and voted into law, we do not have that power at the Federal level.
We are totally at the mercy of those that are elected. we are trusting to Fox to guard the hen-house and hoping we'll still have all our chickens when we wake up in the morning.

I don't know the details of your states attempt to implement a sales tax but generally when they do that they aren't offering to take anything off the table, just open another wound to bleed you more rapidly.
The FairTax has as a component of it's legislation a provision that states it CAN NOT become law until AFTER the 16th amendment is repealed. There is a companion bill offered to repeal the 16th that will hit the floor for a vote if the FairTax bill passes.
So if your state was offering an arrangement like that, and if your states proposed sales tax had in it all the other benefits to your state that the FairTax has to offer the country...then maybe you would be able to stir up a different attitude among the voters. Otherwise I say it's a good thing they have rejected just another tax!

Will Robinson wrote:

null0010 wrote:I still don't think it'll ever happen.

If you took the time to learn about all it has to offer it might be of more interest to you and if it was something you were interested in it would have one more supporter and therefore its chances of passing would have improved.

I do not have an interest in a national sales tax, no thank you. I prefer the concept of taxing based on income brackets; I think that is much more fair (for lack of a better word) than some farcical "pre-rebate" system.

If you think it's fair why tax the top one percent more?

null0010 wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

null0010 wrote:I still don't think it'll ever happen.

If you took the time to learn about all it has to offer it might be of more interest to you and if it was something you were interested in it would have one more supporter and therefore its chances of passing would have improved.

I do not have an interest in a national sales tax, no thank you. I prefer the concept of taxing based on income brackets; I think that is much more fair (for lack of a better word) than some farcical "pre-rebate" system.

taxing income doesn't work, people can pay under the table and avoid them. it's much harder to avoid paying taxes on a consumption basis.

Heretic wrote:If you think it's fair why tax the top one percent more?

Why, that's simple!

They can afford it.

(Personally I would prefer a taxation rate based on net worth, but that is something that I believe to be as far-fetched as Will's "Fair Tax" concept; and likely unconstitutional.)

null0010 wrote:

Heretic wrote:If you think it's fair why tax the top one percent more?

Why, that's simple!

They can afford it.

That is one of the worst ways to justify anything. You wouldn't use that rationale on yourself I'm betting.
Someone has a desire to do something to you and they determined you can survive it therefore it is acceptable?

Your government has a serious overspending problem and is raising revenue in a very inefficient and unfair way that allows the rich to avoid much of the burden that would be theirs to bear.
It also is one of the main conduits for corrupt politicians to sell lobbiests (big corporations) and rich people exemptions from their fair share of the burden so the burden falls on the middle class and to the lower class and your solution is 'Lets increase the intensity of this inefficient system some more so we can maybe get a little more trickle down our way'.
After all the rich can afford it right?!?
Of course they can! Because your going to raise a rate that they can buy exemptions from at 10 cents on the dollar and the government will just print more money to cover the shortfall between their ever increasing budget and the actual amount of revenue that is captured!

And on top of that you won't even examine the benefits of the plan that you ignorantly reject, benefits which go far beyond just being a better way to collect revenue fairly. They actually do something positive for the economy.
I'm sure the rich and powerful masters of Washington would thank you for being such a useful pawn on their board!

Will Robinson wrote:

null0010 wrote:

Heretic wrote:If you think it's fair why tax the top one percent more?

Why, that's simple!

They can afford it.

That is one of the worst ways to justify anything. You wouldn't use that rationale on yourself I'm betting.

I certainly would. I would gladly pay a higher tax rate if the money were going to essential services like upgrading the nation;'s data infrastructure or universal healthcare or something like that.

My solutuion is to close taxation loopholes and make it difficult to add new ones; and to simplify the tax code to how it was in the 1950s and 1960s. My American History teacher told us (anecdotal evidence, I know) that in the 50s, when he was a young man, it took him about one hour to file his income taxes and he could do it all on a single sheet of paper.

null0010 wrote:...
I certainly would. I would gladly pay a higher tax rate if the money were going to essential services like upgrading the nation;'s data infrastructure or universal healthcare or something like that.

That is one big "if". Have you considered why so little of that important work gets done relative to the trillions of dollars collected for that purpose?!? The answer is because corrupt and greedy people get to bargain away much of thet revenue for their own purpose and you reject ending that practice. You fool yourself by offering to reform that system by maintaining that system! Ridiculous. Your solution requires all politicians to suddenly abandon their very nature and give up voluntarily that which they lie cheat and steal for everyday! Your solution is like saying 'we have too many drive by shootings in the hood, I'm going to make firearms training mandatory.' I'm saying we need to take away the guns from the gangbangers.

My solutuion is to close taxation loopholes and make it difficult to add new ones; and to simplify the tax code to how it was in the 1950s and 1960s. My American History teacher told us (anecdotal evidence, I know) that in the 50s, when he was a young man, it took him about one hour to file his income taxes and he could do it all on a single sheet of paper.

Please explain how you would do that without leaving the ability to turn it right back into what it is today in the hands of the government? Any viable solution is going to look an awful lot like the FairTax's 16th amendment repeal...
Hope and Change was a slogan not a recipe for reform.

I would do it in the same quasi-mythical super-unlikely way that you would implement the Fair Tax, of course.

flip wrote:

Your solution requires all politicians to suddenly abandon their very nature and give up voluntarily that which they lie cheat and steal for everyday!

Yours does too Will.

No, my solution forces them to give it up. The people vote it in and the congress lose the ability to abuse revenue collection and selling exemptions for favors/votes. It doesn't depend on Congress developing ethics, it forcibly removes the weapon from their hand.

Your solution requires all politicians to suddenly abandon their very nature and give up voluntarily that which they lie cheat and steal for everyday!

Yours does too Will.

null0010 wrote:I would do it in the same quasi-mythical super-unlikely way that you would implement the Fair Tax, of course.

We can debate the likelyhood of it passing as much as you want but the FairTax is a real plan that lays out how it would accomplish its claimed benefits.
You don't seem to have a real plan just a need to reject someone elses.

If I thought it had a snowball's chance in hell of passing and a loooong time to study the income tax code, I would write a very real plan. I don't have either of those things, because I am not delusional like some people.

I mean seriously. Repealing a constitutional amendment? Yeah. Freaking. Right. I don't understand how you think it's beyond Congress to eliminate a few loopholes regarding tax codes because they are corrupt about income taxation, but at the same time they are such saints and angels that they would gladly give up their corrupt powers of income taxation if we just ask them nicely.

null0010 wrote:If I thought it had a snowball's chance in hell of passing and a loooong time to study the income tax code, I would write a very real plan. I don't have either of those things, because I am not delusional like some people.

I mean seriously. Repealing a constitutional amendment? Yeah. Freaking. Right.

What percentage of the nation was affected by the inability to buy alcohol? What percentage of the country is affected by taxation, government corruption and a floundering economy?

The 18th amendment was repealed by passing the 21st amendment. We have passed amendments to free slaves and give woman the vote and even to make buying alcohol legal again so what makes you think we can't pass a new form of tax collection, especially if it has many other benefits to us all?
Your assumption that it can't be done is not supported by history so what do you prop it up with?

.. I don't understand how you think it's beyond Congress to eliminate a few loopholes regarding tax codes because they are corrupt about income taxation, but at the same time they are such saints and angels that they would gladly give up their corrupt powers of income taxation if we just ask them nicely.

The difference, as I already explained is the FairTax forcibly removes their authority. If the people call for it and Congress refuses to get on board they lose their place of power at the next election. They do tend to worry about re-election, you just have to have enough support for an issue to get them worried and they respond. Their replacements will come in on the bandwagon and pass the bill if they fail to respond.
Your solution is like asking them nicely to please stop....

Probably the only hope you have of them fixing their own behavior is if the FairTax bill started to gain enough momentum they might try to adopt some of it as a pre-emptive measure to make it seem like the FairTax wasn't needed. That would be fine for me but how many heroin junkies really kick the habit voluntarily? It seems to me your solution is the one that is a pipedream.

You're running into the same problem here that you run into when you urge people to vote for a third party. I think you have very unrealistic expectations of the American political system. Sure it would be nice if we lived in a world where the system functioned as advertised and bad congresspersons were defeated in elections by true defenders of the American Way and all kinds of rainbow unicorn hope and change dreams like that, but that is simply not going to happen.

the methodology of collecting taxes won't fix America's money issues - like Greece, you have a populace that:

• expects social programs to remain funded
• aren't willing to pay for it
• perfectly willing to get free money from the government

Congress basically reflects that.

If you made it much harder to lower the tax rate you'd be in a better position.

null0010 wrote:You're running into the same problem here that you run into when you urge people to vote for a third party. I think you have very unrealistic expectations of the American political system. Sure it would be nice if we lived in a world where the system functioned as advertised and bad congresspersons were defeated in elections by true defenders of the American Way and all kinds of rainbow unicorn hope and change dreams like that, but that is simply not going to happen.

I understand it is harder than passing free healthcare but it isn't impossible by any stretch.
Your adopting a defeatist attitude and that just isn't for me.

The worse things get the easier it is to get the country to move as one, i'd like that move to be a positive one. The current opinion polls of congress is just above Hitler in the middle of WWII and the economy is treading water just above the crash of '29 so there is reason to believe big changes could be swept into play. I'd sure rather something like the FairTax be on the crest of that wave than a VAT added to the IRS which is just what the greedy bastards in congress would like to do!! I think an additional tax would be the death of us if it happens.

I wish you would consider the other aspects of the FairTax and weigh those potential benefits in your calculation of the merits of the bill. The neutering of the corruption and the economic benefits are worthy changes. I think people should decide based on the merits without giving up just because the implementation might be very difficult.

And I still haven't found what I don't like about the plan which bothers me since I never like all of something like this so we'll see if it turns up or the authors compromise it and include some flaw in their attempt to gather support...that seems to be almost inevitable these days.

fliptw wrote:the methodology of collecting taxes won't fix America's money issues - like Greece, you have a populace that:

• expects social programs to remain funded
• aren't willing to pay for it
• perfectly willing to get free money from the government

Congress basically reflects that. ...

I hear you. The FairTax is a little more than just a way to collect taxes though. Because of the way Congress uses the tax code to sell us out to big corporations and rich people, dumping the IRS tax code for a consumption tax gives us some needed reform and the whole effect it would have on our markets is also a benefit that just changing collection schemes wouldn't provide. So, no it won't fix everything but it will do more than you seem to give it credit for.

and yes congress reflects the greed of the people but it also shines with it's own brand of corrupt greed that doesn't need to be tolerated and every damaging blow to the lobbiest system we can deliver is a great thing

IMO, the problem with getting FairTax passed is that it's virtually an impossible sell, not to Congress, but to the lower-income public.

"Most things will cost 30-35% more. But it's okay because there's no income tax and you might get a pre-bate check!" is going to be seen very negatively. Most low-income folk I know would just say, "I pay very little income tax anyway, and there's no way that check is going to cover my extra costs year-round!".

Whether or not that's actually the case, low-income families would see FairTax as negative, simply because they track their finances through the lens of weekly or even day-to-day expense.

Foil wrote:IMO, the problem with getting FairTax passed is that it's virtually an impossible sell, not to Congress, but to the lower-income public.

"Most things will cost 30-35% more. But it's okay because there's no income tax and you might get a pre-bate check!" is going to be seen very negatively. Most low-income folk I know would just say, "I pay very little income tax anyway, and there's no way that check is going to cover my extra costs year-round!".

Whether or not that's actually the case, low-income families would see FairTax as negative, simply because they track their finances through the lens of weekly or even day-to-day expense.

But most things will cost the same not more (see the embedded tax built into the prices we currently pay), they will get to keep the GROSS pay instead of the NET pay on their check stub plus get the pre-bate...not maybe get the pre-bate...
The lower class will instantly have a little more cash every week.

Can the proponents of the bill overcome the misinformation campaign and sell it? I don't know.

Will Robinson wrote:...they will get to keep the GROSS pay instead of the NET pay on their check stub...

On my middle-class salary, yeah, that's a big deal. But for most low-income folk (and from my own experience years ago trying to live on a tiny grad student stipend), that's not much difference.

---------

P.S. After some research, I personally see the FairTax pretty favorably. But I honestly don't see it gaining much ground on the left or in the low-income bracket.

Foil wrote:P.S. After some research, I personally see the FairTax pretty favorably. But I honestly don't see it gaining much ground on the left or in the low-income bracket.

Of course not, and I know I'll be blasted by the libs for this. but many inner city low income people are living on the governments handouts, and the left panders to those people. so for one you'll be taking away the free ride of people, and on the other your taking away the power to pander for votes to those people.

The Fairtax is probably a step in the right direction, but if anyone thinks things are gonna reverse direction from the way they are going is wholeheartedly deceiving themselves. The point is to define it for exactly what it is and where it is going, and then prepare for those circumstances. Not some "pie in the sky" ideal that is nothing more than wishing things were different. If I see a real effort and chance for the Fairtax, I'm behind it 100% just to back the sentiment, but in my heart, I know things will continue as they are. If our politicians weren't so damn shady and feeling superior, the chant wouldn't have been "Hope and Change" but rather, "Preparation and Adaptation for the New Age."

fliptw wrote:Changing the way the government collects taxes won't affect how congress spends it.

bingo, a true winner!

CUDA wrote:

Foil wrote:P.S. After some research, I personally see the FairTax pretty favorably. But I honestly don't see it gaining much ground on the left or in the low-income bracket.

Of course not, and I know I'll be blasted by the libs for this. but many inner city low income people are living on the governments handouts, and the left panders to those people. so for one you'll be taking away the free ride of people, and on the other your taking away the power to pander for votes to those people.

this is the nonsense the right attempts to sell. I suppose it works if you NEVER have any discourse with the range of people collecting benefits. Fraud, waste and abuse of government benefits occur, but it's never been shown to amount to much of the total, with the possible exception of Medicaire, and even that amounts to a 6-10% fraud rate. To pin it on 'many inner city people'(and we all know what that means, now don't we?)creates a comfy boogie-man for suburbanites, and it is a massive load of crap.

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:

Foil wrote:P.S. After some research, I personally see the FairTax pretty favorably. But I honestly don't see it gaining much ground on the left or in the low-income bracket.

Of course not, and I know I'll be blasted by the libs for this. but many inner city low income people are living on the governments handouts, and the left panders to those people. so for one you'll be taking away the free ride of people, and on the other your taking away the power to pander for votes to those people.

this is the nonsense the right attempts to sell. I suppose it works if you NEVER have any discourse with the range of people collecting benefits. Fraud, waste and abuse of government benefits occur, but it's never been shown to amount to much of the total, with the possible exception of Medicaire, and even that amounts to a 6-10% fraud rate. To pin it on 'many inner city people'(and we all know what that means, now don't we?)creates a comfy boogie-man for suburbanites, and it is a massive load of crap.

"According to a 2008 report released by the Carsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire, on average, rates of poverty are persistently higher in rural and inner city parts of the country as compared to suburban areas."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in ... ted_States

callmeslick wrote:and we all know what that means, now don't we?

no why don't you explain it to me,

because honestly I was referring to lazy people, who spend a majority of their lives sucking on the governments tit, and those people tend to be inner city people, rural people tend to be raise with a stronger work ethic and don't take the same hand out approach long term. so what were you referring to ?

callmeslick wrote:

fliptw wrote:Changing the way the government collects taxes won't affect how congress spends it.

bingo, a true winner!

Well considering they already spend more than they collect that is true but there is more at stake than the mechanism of collecting. There is also the plight of the people you collect it from!

So if you can spread that burden out more fairly then you have done a good thing for the people regardless of the spending habits of Congress which are a totally different issue...

Now if you can spread that burden out more fairly AND limit the ability of congress to exempt a lot of revenue in return for votes/support you have done another good thing for the people.

And then, if you can spread that burden out more fairly AND limit the ability of congress to exempt a lot of revenue in return for votes/support AND do those things in a way that gross domestic product (GDP) increases by an estimated 10.5 percent in the first year alone, raises the economy’s capital stock by 42 percent, its labor supply by 4 percent, its output by 12 percent, and its real wage rate by 8 percent, cause U.S. companies and individuals to repatriate, on a tax-free basis, income generated overseas, huge amounts of new capital flood into the United States. With such a huge capital supply, real interest rates remain low. Additionally, other international investors will seek to invest here to avoid taxes on income in their own countries, thereby further spurring the growth of our own economy.

Do that and even though you haven't given Congress an ethics enema you have done quite a few good things haven't you?

I myself don't think you can believe in God and be a racist, only an evolutionists provides that possibility. Point is, I look at people of others races the same as I look at myself, but from what I've noticed, at least 85% (generous) look at me like I'm the damn devil. If they think anything about the Government or the current system in any way as they look at me, they will take it for everything they can. People will try and make that a distinction of race , but the fact is the enmity is between the rich and the poor.

I’m going to have a look at that prebate, and see if I can figure out a way somebody could live off it.

Spidey wrote:I’m going to have a look at that prebate, and see if I can figure out a way somebody could live off it.

Why would you expect someone is going to live off of it? It is only supposed to replace the FairTax amount paid on essential goods and services up to the poverty level! It removes the tax burden completely from anyone who earns the poverty level or less. That is all it does.

woodchip wrote:"According to a 2008 report released by the Carsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire, on average, rates of poverty are persistently higher in rural and inner city parts of the country as compared to suburban areas."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in ... ted_States

thanks for the shout-out to my undergrad alma mater, but the UNH data merely restates that obvious fact that the poor cannot afford the suburbs, for many reasons. It does NOT shed light on likelyhood or frequency of abuse of aid to the poor.

CUDA wrote:,

because honestly I was referring to lazy people, who spend a majority of their lives sucking on the governments tit, and those people tend to be inner city people, rural people tend to be raise with a stronger work ethic and don't take the same hand out approach long term. so what were you referring to ?

I was referring to my opinion that your generalization, which you repeat above, is a crock of ★■◆●. You telling me that lazy people don't live in rural areas, or even(maybe especially) in suburbs?

fliptw wrote:the methodology of collecting taxes won't fix America's money issues - like Greece, you have a populace that:

• expects social programs to remain funded
• aren't willing to pay for it
• perfectly willing to get free money from the government

Congress basically reflects that.

If you made it much harder to lower the tax rate you'd be in a better position.

I missed this the first time through, and will merely say that Flip is on a roll, and I agree completely. We are a nation, chock-full of folks who want stuff(goods, services, healthcare, social safety nets, houses, etc) and a huge chunk of us are unwilling to pay for that stuff. None of this is free, yet no one wishes to pay up. Thus, you get a government in deficit, tons of folks defaulting on credit cards and going into foreclosure on home loans they couldn't afford. They want the hospital to spend 20 grand a day to keep them alive after some tragic accident or disease and want to get transplants when their organs fail, but not pay more for health insurance. It's pure insanity, but that is the nation we live in, and our elected officials(whose job depends on public approval every term) know it.

That gets into a chicken egg debate. Maybe they should quit teaching our children bull★■◆● ideologies and theoretical science and start teaching them how to become capitalist. No, there's enough crap to the umpteenth degree being peddled it's no wonder society is degenerating.

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:,

because honestly I was referring to lazy people, who spend a majority of their lives sucking on the governments tit, and those people tend to be inner city people, rural people tend to be raise with a stronger work ethic and don't take the same hand out approach long term. so what were you referring to ?

I was referring to my opinion that your generalization, which you repeat above, is a crock of ****. You telling me that lazy people don't live in rural areas, or even(maybe especially) in suburbs?

And that's the beauty of my opinion it's mine, just as I think your opinion is also a Crock of ****. I never said that Lazy people don't live in Rural areas. but I've found through personal experience. that people that live in the rural areas have a greater sense of a work ethic and a greater personal accountability for themselves. Just my opinion

flip wrote:That gets into a chicken egg debate. Maybe they should quit teaching our children **** ideologies and theoretical science and start teaching them how to become capitalist. No, there's enough crap to the umpteenth degree being peddled it's no wonder society is degenerating.

no education worth squat ought to focus on 'becoming capitalist'. Education should be about critical thinking and we don't do that very well any more, in many schools.