Upcoming Tax Rebates

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
<p>xsocal, now that I know you, I consider you a Realtor in every sense of the word. </p>

<p>I would imagine most Capitalists will consider Communists "not so good". </p>
 
<p>Awgee,</p>

<p><em>"T!M - Everything you mention would still exist and be less expensive without government involvement."</em></p>

<p>Okay, I'll bite , who would do all the things I mention?</p>
 
OCPOP says...."Mino2126, think about that comment for a minute. Are you advocating that we should have no government altogether? How about national defense, police, SEC, public education, medicare? You are essentially saying that you are better equipped to provide these services by yourself than the govt."



I think you are taking what I said out of context. First lets broadly define what the FairTax is. The FairTax is nothing more than a "Federal" sales tax the replaces all other Federal Taxes...ie income tax, short / long term gains tax, death tax, estate tax...etc. (www.fairtax.org)



Now what I was refering to is the fact that the govt has increased spending by billions of dollars over the last few decades. Please refer to this link:



http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/upload/93690_1.pdf



to get an understanding of just where all this money goes. In 2003 the govt couldn't account for $24.5 billion dollars? How can you not account for $24.5 billion dollars. Additionally, look at all the duplicated programs our govt funds...342 Economic Development Programs, 130 Disabled Programs, 90 Early Childhood Programs, 72 Safe Water Programs...etc.

This does not even include the Farm Subsidies that go to individuals that don't farm or to massive farmers who don't even need the money.



My point in my comment is that the govt spends billions of dollars / year on programs, projects, and self interest that do not provide any benefit to the public other than getting them votes. It is proven that many govt programs have failed and will continue to do so. Why not give the money to the ppl and let them decide how to use it. I think all the "nonprofit" programs initiated by "charitable organizations" have impacted people in a much greater way than many of the govt sponsored.



So yes we need defenses, medicare / cade, social security, infrastructure...and so on. We just don't need the redundant and nonperforming programs.
 
I'm just iffy about the portion that makes the fair tax revenue neutral. After some point, consumption does not scale with income anymore. Those who have the privilege to have way more money than they consume get the benefit of a nice break when it comes to saving money. There will be no tax revenue from that. The fact that the tax base broadens by making tourists and visitors pay "federal" taxes on their shopping sprees works if we assume that they are still coming here to spend their money. If you tax them too high, they will just go somewhere else and buy their stuff. Illegal aliens would also pay taxes; but seriously, how much are we talking here? Given the wages they earn and the fact that there are billions of dollars flowing back to their home countries, there is not that much left for consumption. Now, getting rid of the IRS would certainly put a nice ding in the budget - but easy taxes mean that the whole industry surrounding tax time would disappear. I don't know about it - in <em>theory </em>it sounds like it should be fine but execution is usually where things start to fail. Is there a good example of this system to have been proven to work? I also see a potential for driving a "used goods" economy or people still exploiting the "for business purposes" loophole.
 
Green_Cactus





Florida, Tennessee, and Texas(not 100% sure on TX) are all states that use a version of the Fair Tax...ie not State Income Tax. Trust me I don't believe that we should abolish the IRS...I personally believe we still need corporate taxes...however their is many inefficiencies in our tax code, I am sure AWGEE can attest to this. I view the FairTax as a way to eliminate the need for all the hiding and off shore accounts that many high net worth people use today to avoid paying taxes...and like wise.





To counter your part about the rich being able to save more...well the poor will be able to save more as well..in percentages probable very comparable. Additionally majority of American jobs are created in the small business area. Would it not be beneficial to give the guys that create, start, and fund these businesses more money so they can further spend and create more jobs?
 
If someone is poor and can barely afford the necessities of life, will they really put money aside (proportionally so than a person making a boatload) and save it? I seriously doubt it. After some point of income the ratio of consumption/income starts to diminish and as such the ratio of savings/income rises (savings + investments). Since savings don't get taxed under this scheme the disparity only grows between those who are able to save and those who are not.
 
<p>Yeah, I don't see how this helps the poor save. (I'm not saying that needs to be important, I'm just saying I don't see it.) With our current income tax system, the poor actually GET money instead of paying. I don't see any way that happens with taxes all moving to sales tax.</p>

<p>I echo green_cactus' concern that the FairTax effectively makes the tax rate be the opposite of progressive. It seems to me that the more you make, the lower your tax percentage. Wouldn't this help those who have a lot of money to be able to get rich faster and faster off untaxed interest? When they kick it, they can leave it to their kids, who will then be rich, but not necessarily productive in any way. This leads to an aristocracy rather than a meritocracy. If you want an aristocracy, then go for it. I would rather we strive towards a meritocracy.</p>

<p>Please tell me where I've gone wrong or what I'm missing. And please make it something relevant to this discussion -- my family and friends have already covered the other areas where I've gone wrong. </p>
 
Money will just come trickling down right into their pockets. Back to the thread ...





From the AP wire: "President Bush signed legislation Wednesday to rush rebates ranging from $300 to $1,200 to millions of people, the centerpiece of government efforts to brace the wobbly economy. First, though, you must file your 2007 tax return."





<strong>It's done!!</strong>
 
Green Cactus



First off, do you really believe the stimulus is going to work? It's 1% of the total GDP and relies on consumers to spend it to prop the economy not save or pay off debt....man I know where my check is going.



T!M you said

"If someone is poor and can barely afford the necessities of life, will they really put money aside (proportionally so than a person making a boatload) and save it?"



This is a social question and one that needs to be answered by the person who now has more disposable income. For instance, I grew up in the Midwest, my parents made decent money, and they saved more money than I could ever imagine. They were able to provide my brother and I a healthy lifestyle and pay for most of our college...father was a fire fighter and mother a teacher...hope that gives you a sense of where we stood. The less fortunate have to decide if they want their kids to grow up better than them and if so they need to save to help their kids succeed. If not, well as the govt has shown they will more than likely fail.



The purpose of the FairTax is for individuals to decide where their income will be spent and not the government. The less fortunate will still have the same types of programs to benefit them it's that the "pork" spending and redundent programs will be eliminated.
 
Green Cactus....was not insinuating where you stood on the position. Was just relaying my position on the matter.





So you never responded to the rest of my thread....come on man I have nothing to do at work!!!!
 
<p>It is not for me. It is for the economic welfare of this country. I am a patriot and love this country. And if that means that I have to into bankruptcy to do it, gosh darn it, I will go into bankruptcy. If I stop spending, the terrorists win. </p>
 
I think that people who have disposable income can make a decision on how that should be used - e.g. be it for a 529 plan or a trip to Hawaii. With the fair tax there would be more of an incentive to save up. The situation that concerns me is when there is no disposable income at hand - then there is no "decision" to be made. People in that situation don't get to benefit from this proposal. Fair tax says fine, we'll give them rebates. That extra money might not cover the difference of income and necessities; thus, no savings. People who have a lot of disposable income can (and would) make the decision to save it. When it comes to the effective tax rate that people pay, it would start diminishing above a certain income bracket (going back to my disconnect between consumption and income at higher earnings).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top