Posted on 08/01/2004 6:08:53 PM PDT by NeoCaveman
Okay, I see your point, but as it stands, the ones who use the social benefits currently pay NOTHING, or they actually make money with the Earned Income Credit. How is your scenario different? (Except the border thing)
What happens to those who are hopelessly in for back taxes?
How does that rebate work? If I'm poor, I file a form stating my income and records of what I paid in sales tax and they send me a check?
I'm learning here.
"1. Where would the government get the money to pay taxes? Their only stream of income is taxing us.
2. What are the consequences if the government is unable to pay its taxes? Would it eliminate services, cut payroll, shut down parts of itself, or simply raise more income (i.e., raise taxes; see question #1)?"
-- I'll answer both:
1. Government would have to decide whether they would (1) raise taxes or (2) cut spending. I feel us conservatives will win that battle. It will get to the point with a lot of programs that they'll jsut be better off letting people keep their money. Think of Education funding at the state level: The government has the option of (1) spending money on funding public schoiols and paying taxes on it, or (2) giving vouchers and having citizens NOT pay taxes on it (education is TAX-FREE under the FairTax). Do you think they'll give vouchers?
2. They government has to pay the taxes when they make the purchase; the government has to pay the tax at the point of sale (POS).
I'm all for something like the NRST, but it can't be sold to the American people. Impossible. Far too much room for rhetoric to kill the issue entirely. A flat tax is unlikely, but at least it's doable. And if done correctly, the IRS could be pared down to virtually nothing.
apparantly everyone gets a rebate check from the government: rich or poor. Doesn't sound like such a good idea to me
I've been self-employed for many years. I have much more problems with the State of Texas taxes than the federal taxes.
VAT is one of the choices listed..
It's an administration issue. How are you going to track when someone has spent up to the necessity level every month?
It's easier to just cut a check and tax everything at the point of sale.
Of course, the upside for taxpayers, is that every time we make a purchase, we are reminded of the true tax rate. It isn't hidden by withholding, or being built into the cost of the product.
It's a revenue neutral plan, the total tax burden is just frontloaded so that we can all see it. read it, it's really pretty cool. --fairtax.org
A VAT is a monumentally bad idea. A NRST, however, actually makes a lot of sense.
Even if the the government saved nothing from eliminating the IRS it would be worth it to no longer have to hassle with tax forms and the invasion of privacy inherent in an income tax.
It's only appropritate that Bush's War of Terror would include the original purveyor's of domestic terror in his crosshairs: the IRS
"No. I work in a retail business (restaurant). The burden of taxation will be focused on people like me."
Do you pay taxes as it is? Do you file as both an individual and a business? Under the FairTax, you'll only file once. Read the following on the FairTax and retailers. There's a reason why the national association of retailers is endoring the FairTax.
Amen.
"I am talking about the total economic cost which includes the economic disincentives to work, save and invest. See James L. Payne's work -- he calculated .$65 in 1995. It has gone up since then."
-- I thought I read at FairTax.org that $0.65 is the high-end number.
Everybody gets a rebate check for the same dollar amount: you, me, and Bill Gates. It's enough to cover the taxes paid on purchases up to the poverty level or thereabouts. This turns the FairTax into a progressive system; as you spend more, the rebate cancels less of your taxes percentage-wise, so your effective rate increases.
"How does that rebate work? If I'm poor, I file a form stating my income and records of what I paid in sales tax and they send me a check?"
The rebate has nothing to do with income level, or spending. It depends only on family size (as determined by verifiable SSNs). It is a very simple and clean way to ensure that the system is not regressive. Those living at or below the poverty level would see a 15 - 30% increase in purchasing power.
No federal sales tax up to the poverty level means progressivity like today's tax system. Furthermore, to ensure that no American pays tax on necessities, the FairTax plan provides a prepaid, monthly rebate for every registered household to cover the consumption tax spent on necessities up to the federal poverty level. This, along with several other features, is how the FairTax completely untaxes the poor, lowers the tax burden on most, while making the overall rate progressive. However, the FairTax is progressive based on lifestyle/spending choices, rather than simply punishing those taxpayers who are successful. Do you see how much freer life is with the FairTax instead of the income tax?
We still need meaningful spending limits. Else how much is each government department going to know how much to spend at the POS?
it will also create lots of opportunities for fraud and abuse. Several people will try to get more than one check once you have this new attitude of "who cares who you are-just take the check"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.