Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
While I am a big fan of tax reform (and I specifically like The Fair Tax), I don't see it happening.
Fair Tax? There is none except one. Land Valuation Taxation the only progressive tax. All the rest are bad taxes - regressive taxes - that penalise the productive, while rewarding predators (parasites).
The "Fair" Tax is also known as Consumption Tax or National Sales Tax.
You just gave an argument AGAINST Land value taxation. Gentrification will still happen under that system. The affluent will move into an area, raise the value this increasing land value tax on the poor....forcing them to sell or lose their land.
The same happens with the "fair" tax on those who have to buy new goods because old goods aren't available or are in fact cheaper than the old goods. Take a car for instance, old cars can be as low as $2,500 while the lowest price of a new car is as low as $8,000. The fair tax would drive up prices of used cars because people would game the system to beat it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd
It appears that you know little about the Fair Tax.
Yes because most people know it as the Consumption Tax and others know it as the National Sales Tax. The tax isn't fair at all and is easy to game as is the current tax rates. I suggest you like others read and figure it out for themselves.
Shows how little you know about the Fair Tax if you think it's actually "fair"
Kinda like No Child Left Behind and the Patriot Act.
I am with you. I find it regressive and unfair because it will hurt the working poor and middle class. The rich will pay about the same, maybe less. Plus they can cut back to adapt. The working poor and middle class, not so much and are penalized because they paycheck-to-paycheck while the upper class can cutback.
I am with you. I find it regressive and unfair because it will hurt the working poor and middle class. The rich will pay about the same, maybe less. Plus they can cut back to adapt. The working poor and middle class, not so much and are penalized because they paycheck-to-paycheck while the upper class can cutback.
The rich will pay far far less. We already know how this works, because we already have sales taxes. Sales tax is the most regressive tax. The rich don't spend a significant portion of their income compared with the middle class and the poor.
The rich will pay far far less. We already know how this works, because we already have sales taxes. Sales tax is the most regressive tax. The rich don't spend a significant portion of their income compared with the middle class and the poor.
The rich will pay far far less. We already know how this works, because we already have sales taxes. Sales tax is the most regressive tax. The rich don't spend a significant portion of their income compared with the middle class and the poor.
It would actually encourage wealth hoarding...
Yeah, it encourages hoarding because it taxes on what you buy not what you make. The rich can change behavior more than others who live paycheck-to-paycheck. Now yes, the argument is the rich will pay for X just because, but under this idea, that is taxed while income isn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordSquidworth
Which in our economy is deadly.
Exactly. Look at the way the economy is "booming" with skeleton crews and less players...
The "Fair" Tax is also known as Consumption Tax or National Sales Tax.
This is nonsense. A tax on sales is a tax on trade. What you do not want to do. It is best buy far to "reclaim" economic rent. Use commonly created wealth to pay for common services.
Anything else is a bad regressive tax. Taxes meant to milk the poor at the benefit of the rich.
You just gave an argument AGAINST Land value taxation. Gentrification will still happen under that system. The affluent will move into an area, raise the value this increasing land value tax on the poor....forcing them to sell or lose their land.
It is clear you do not understand Land Value Taxation. It is a levy on the value of the land only. The buildings are not taxed. The value is assessed annually. If the value goes down, so doe the levy, if up so does the levy. It is fair. None is pushed onto the poor. Live in a high value district, as the rich do, and you pay more. The market determines the value of the land. It is auto correcting.
This is nonsense. A tax on sales is a tax on trade. What you do not want to do. It is best buy far to "reclaim" economic rent. Use commonly created wealth to pay for common services.
Anything else is a bad regressive tax. Taxes meant to milk the poor at the benefit of the rich.
How would economic rent help the poor compared to the rich? Call me "stupid" but you have me intrigued by this idea. Also, where would true rent fall in? Would it raise rates because owners would jack up prices due to higher overhead from taxes)? Would they need to pay economic rent as well?
Though I do have to ask how is a marginal flat tax regressive? I can plainly see why a fair tax is and a true flat tax of 17% would be, even the the current system but not a marginal flat tat
The rich will pay far far less. We already know how this works, because we already have sales taxes. Sales tax is the most regressive tax. The rich don't spend a significant portion of their income compared with the middle class and the poor.
It would actually encourage wealth hoarding...
While I agree a use tax would have a hard time being progressive, I disagree that "wealth hoarding" is such a bad thing. If the money is never spent, what's the point in being rich? Excessive consumption is the bad thing; wealth hoarding is nothing more than living frugally.
In some sense the amount you make is how much you contribute to the well being of society and how much you spend is how much you consume from society. The problems with excessive stores all ultimately stem from the wealthy (or their spoiled children) spending in great excess.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Also, where would true rent fall in? Would it raise rates because owners would jack up prices due to higher overhead from taxes)? Would they need to pay economic rent as well?
