[cherylncliff]

This has been proposed on and off for years. It is a very regressive form of taxation, hitting those at the lower income levels much more heavily than wealthy people since a much larger percentage of their income goes to purchasing goods and services.

[tvbound]

Originally Posted by cherylncliff

This has been proposed on and off for years. It is a very regressive form of taxation, hitting those at the lower income levels much more heavily than wealthy people since a much larger percentage of their income goes to purchasing goods and services.

"...hitting those at the lower income levels much more heavily than wealthy people since a much larger percentage of their income goes to purchasing goods and services."


Exactly.

No surprise though, as that's always been the goal of the wealthiest Americans.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Ski Bum

Nice job not reading the bill and passing judgment anyway. Every proposed flat tax, consumption tax, national sales tax, whatever iteration, has always had credits and deductions for the poor, including this one. So it's not regressive. The only regressive tax was implemented by FDR.

I posted the text of the actual bill up-thread. It does say there is a "payback" for poor people and family members but it doesn't mention how much that payback is, or how poor you have to be to be eligible for it.

It DOES give actual exemption for anyone who invests. Poor people can't invest - they're poor. So they'll foot the bill, and eventually get paid - some? of it back. Middle class folks who are already saving for actual expenses rather than socking money away with the expectation that they'll be wealthy - can't do the kind of investing that wealthier people can - so they won't get those kinds of exemptions either.

Only the wealthiest will pay NO income tax, NO investment tax, NO property tax. Everyone else will pay - and some of them will get some of it back.

That is not a "fair" tax act. There is nothing fair about it. At all.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Dgodin

When I was ststioned in Germany in the 1980s, the VAT(value added) tax applied to purchases was14%. Imagine a 14% tax on an auto purchase. I was glad we were exempt.
I don't think its a good idea.

The current text of the current Act on this thread imposes a *minimum* 23% sales tax. Imagine a 23% sales tax on auto purchases. There would ALSO be an extra fee - because when you buy a car and pay tax, that tax is collected by the state. The state now has to fund the cost of sending that 23% to the federal government. That requires an office staff to do all the paperwork involved.

That 23% sales tax for the Fed, will turn into a 30+% overall increased cost for your car.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Battlebasset

No, that would be your perception of that. If you are surviving on SS and Medicare, and are pulling out more than you put in (with interest) it's welfare. I'm just saying give people a chance to invest more for their future so they don't have to rely on welfare, even if you call it by a different name.

If they don't/can't, then they would go on (real) welfare and Medicaid/ACA. And we could then fund it properly, via taxes.

This is offset in part by all the immigrants who work here legally on visas, or even illegally on fake social security numbers, who get paychecks. They have these social security and medicare contributions deducted from their paychecks but *cannot* collect it when they retire. They're not allowed. So where does all that money go? It goes into the pool that the vast majority of American citizens benefit from when they get old.

If you're doing so well that you don't need your social security or medicare money, I recommend that you reject the medicare, get on an individual health care plan out of your own pocket, and donate 100% of your monthly social security check to poor people who don't have it as good as you do.

Or, you can stop complaining that you are entitled to get more than you put in.

[Karmanng]

Originally Posted by retired guy

It's called the FAIR TAX, there is a web site, & a book. Repeal of the 16th amendment is included in the bill.
I'm all in.

How long do you think it will take to be implemeted?

[Number 10 GI]

Originally Posted by airstreamingypsy

What happens to people who survive on SS and Medicare? European countries are socialist and take care of their residents with things like free healthcare..... your ways sounds like a good way to wipe out people less fortunate than you.

Nothing is free. Taxes pay for this "free healthcare" and where does that tax come from? Make a wild guess.

[Battlebasset]

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI

Nothing is free. Taxes pay for this "free healthcare" and where does that tax come from? Make a wild guess.

And for Europe, they are able to do that in part because we cover a good chunk of their defense.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by CoachKandSportsguy

https://buddycarter.house.gov/upload..._act_118th.pdf

Replacing all taxes with a consumption tax. . . basically a sales and service tax. . .

not sure how this bill will get implemented, and even if its a good idea. . . switching from income earned to good and services purchased . . .

I do NOT like the whole concept of eliminating income taxes, which when properly used with REAL PROGRESSIVENESS forces the upper class 1 % and upper 10 % to pay their fair share. That is the way California is set up and I know people will FREAK OUT but, the middle class in California ACTUALLY gets a fair deal and does NOT pay high taxes (as many would erroneously suggest). It is the uber-rich that complain and WHINE when they are FORCED to pay their FAIR share to a state where they have been VERY SUCCESSFUL.

Consumption taxes are just a NEW name for the FLAT TAX system that FAVORS the rich that ALREADY have their McMansions and unduly PUNISHES the LITTLE people that are working hard to be able to pay for their 1st starter home. It is the OPPOSITE of the SO CALLED American concept that each generation should HAVE to EARN its riches and PRIVILEGES.

BEWARE America, consumption and flat taxes are a smoke screen that sounds good until you actually do some math and analyze the concept !!!!!!!

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Rainger99

I would like to know who writes these bills.

The answer to that question is.........wait for it........wait..................RICH PEOPLE !

[Stu from NYC]

Fair tax is a great idea and would force lots of CPA's and lawyers to get jobs contributing to our economy.

Get rid of all those deductions and loopholes passed by congressmen bought by special interests.

Pathetic that so many bright people do not contribute.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Byte1

This "Fair Tax" is an excellent idea, ONLY if they do away with the Federal Income tax. This makes it fair for everyone, not just the wealthy carrying the load for everyone else.

I really HATE to say this, but that would be a conclusion that is 180 degrees away from realism.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Byte1

This "Fair Tax" is an excellent idea, ONLY if they do away with the Federal Income tax. This makes it fair for everyone, not just the wealthy carrying the load for everyone else.

Excellent ?????As decided by WHOM? Not yours truly.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

Gave it a quick read...(45 minutes or so later...)

I agree with most. Never pass. And even if it did, implementing it would be contingent on repealing the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and THAT takes convincing a minimum of 38 of the states that it is a good idea.

Scary, though. As always the devil is in the details. Getting rid of the IRS sounds like a great idea but there will still need to be a bureaucracy in place to administer this thing. Also as I read it the individual will be far more responsible for keeping records than they are now, and that could be a real fly in the ointment.

Scariest though: this thing seems tailor-made for social engineering. The bill sets an arbitrary "base rate" which will be subject to periodic adjustment. What is to prevent the government deciding that the purchase of some items should be taxed at a higher rate than others? The bill doesn't say that it will do that, but it doesn't say that it won't. All the government needs to do is to decide that We The People shouldn't have this-or-that, and put the tax on it astronomically high, and Presto! Uncle Sam has at his disposal a unique instrument whereby he can direct the sheep to go in any direction he wants them to, independent of legislative action.

The IRS is a huge pain in the bleep, but in this case...better the devil you know than the devil you don't.

i agree with the wisdom of the last part of the last sentence (and some of the earlier sentences). The problem today is / was highlighted by Warren Buffet when he said that HIS SECRETARY pays more into the Federal government than HE does. Change the IRS brackets and the percentages back to the 1950s level when the RICH paid their FAIR share. And no one would have to make proposals like the FAIR Tax conspiracy, because they would be NOT taken seriously. They ARE taken seriously today because (even though FLAT / jokingly FAIR tax is ludicrous) is that the Federal tax percentages have become RELATIVELY FLAT and that hurts the middle class. If you HATE the IRS it is because you are rich and want to become richer (and screw the middle class, which barely exists today) ( b because the RICH moved it over to China. I have never had a problem with the IRS other than when they don't have enough personnel to go after ALL the RICH Bernie Madoff-types that are Vampire Squids around the necks of the now vanishing middle class. And that's the TRUTH !!!!!

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by petsetc

In high school in the 60s we learned that this is a type of regressive taxation designed to shift the burden from the wealthy to the poor.

i.e, i f I earn $40K to support my family, I spend every penny of it and pay tax on every penny spent. I have nothing to save and grow. BUT if I earn $400K to support my family and I spend (lets say) 200K living well and pay taxes at the same rate as the first guy on what I spent, I have left over $200K to invest and grow...and grow...and grow. And I can pass that on to my heirs forever because they won't have to work or pay an inheritance tax. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer!

FWIW In 1944, the top rate peaked at 94 percent on taxable income over $200,000 ($2.5 million in today's dollars)

History of Federal Income Tax Rates: 1913 – 2023

Whoo Nellie, someone just explained the situation better than I have and in a fraction of the words......now I have a NEW IDOL !!!!!! You go Warren Buffet-like-smart-guy-or-gal.