gfn wrote in
:


Sure I do. *The "flat tax" has the government deriving its revenue
from the income tax.

Yep....at a flat rate for everybody.


As does the FairTax. Best part is the consumer pays it only when they
buy something. They decide when to pay it, not when the government
decides you owe it on payday.

It looks like they are trying to mix sales tax with the old luxury tax.

The FairTax is related because it is a flat sales

tax that generates revenue from sales. *It replaces the income tax
as the method of funding government. *If you fully understand the
FairTax
you will see exactly where I am coming from.

Then to keep it from becoming regressive you must drop that sales tax
from certain items, like food, housing, public transportation,
gasoline, etc.. or you end up with the poor paying a much larger
percentage of their income on those taxes than the wealthy.


Nope, There are two reasons why it's not regressive. First, people
pay no net FairTax at all up to the poverty level.

Which means that someone, somewhere needs to know your income.

Every household
receives a rebate that is equal to the FairTax paid on essential goods
and services.

I looked at the prebate schedule. Where in there does income come into
it for that poverty level? From what I see, it is based on number of
adults and number of dependents.

Second, per my example an item that costs $100 today
still costs $100 under the FairTax.
If that's regressive then sign me
up.



The poor are always going to pay a larger percentage of their income
on everything. No tax system is going to change that. Isn't that
what the bulk of this thread is about?

Not on a flat tax like I proposed. The difference is slight, depending
on your income, but it is there.

The FairTax is a replacement

for the income tax.

Yes....and a flat tax is another method of figuring income tax.

Yeah....and they both accomplish the same thing. *The FairTax is
better because a flat tax still involves taxing income which then
leads to exemptions, deductions, and keeps the 16th amendment in
place as well as the IRS, and I can go on and on about the pitfalls
of our current tax system.

A flat tax on income replaces the current tax system. *If properly
administered it only has ONE deduction and that is poverty level
wages for a family of four. *Everyone gets that ONE deduction, or
exemption if
you prefer, and no other. *You can do your tax on a postcard.


Under the FairTax you don't have to worry about deductions or
exemptions. You don't even have to do your taxes on a postcard
because there is nothing to do. April 15 would be just another
beautiful spring day.

Here's the problem with the flat tax, it retains the invasive income
tax administration apparatus and can easily revert to a graduated,
convoluted mess, as it has many times over many years.

And your fair tax needs to know number of adults in the household along
with number of dependents. There is also nothing there that prevents it
from becoming another convoluted mess. Congress can **** up a bowling
ball.

In addition, a
large part of the burden of the flat tax -- the business tax -- will
remain hidden from people in the retail price of goods and services.

This is an interesting point since there are supposedly intelligent folks
in this newsgroup that don't understand that all businesses end up
passing all their costs to the consumer in the price of the product or
service. If they don't, after awhile they go under.

Under a flat tax, individuals would still file an income tax return
each year. Postcard or not, it's still a return. While this is a
simple postcard, the record keeping requirement is still there. Under
the FairTax, individuals never file a tax return again, ever!

Federally, that could be true, however, when looking at state and local
taxes, it is bull****.

Under
the flat tax, the payroll tax would be retained and income tax
withholding would still be with us.

Yep.

Under the FairTax, the payroll
tax, which is a larger and more regressive tax burden for most
Americans than is the income tax, is repealed.

No, actually, it isn't. It is simply placed in the Fair Tax.

Under the FairTax, what
you earn is what you keep. No more withholding taxes; no more income
tax.

Just more taxes on the point of sale while all taxes from state and local
governments remains intact.

It uses a flat 23% as the revenue generator.

Call it what you will, the FairTax is a winner.

You may think so. I don't. I think it needs too many adjustments
so that it does not become regressive.

I don't think so, I know so. *Tell me how this is regressive?
snip......

Same taxpayer......buys $100 worth of groceries.....pays $123 for
them.

Stop right there. That's incorrect. Under the FairTax the $100 of
groceries will still cost $100. There's no need to even go any
further with your example.

I was speaking of the actual worth of the product. Yes, there are
business taxes, etc.. in there but one cannot generate a new tax without
adding to what is already there. So a product which today costs $100
plus city and state sales taxes will now cost the difference between the
23% sales tax and the old taxes on the product plus city and state sales
taxes. What you have done is taken the taxes previously included the
product price and moved them into your Fair Tax in addition to the hit on
that tax replacing federal income taxes and FICA.

Rich guy, he eats the same, so he buys a $100 worth of
groceries...pays
*
$123 for them. *Which one spent the bigger percentage of their income
o
n
a necessity? *OK, let's fix it....we will not pay that tax on
groceries....oooops, you just generated an exception. *

Three suggestions for you to find out why as well as any other
questions you might have:

1) go visit fairtax.org and read it from front to back. *Pay
particular attention to the FAQ.

I have.

2) Buy and read "The FairTax Book" by Linder and Boortz.

Why? If they can't explain it on their website..........

3) Then buy and read "FairTax:The Truth: Answering the Critics"

It will all become crystal clear.

I am familiar with sales tax schemes, they have been around for
years.
*
With exemptions, they become just as convoluted as the current
system. Excise luxury taxes were another attempt to soak the rich as
poor poeple would never buy luxury taxed items. *How did that work
out?


You may be familiar with sales tax schemes, but it's clear you aren't
familiar with the FairTax. Instead of speculating as you have done
above why not go visit the site and base your criticisms on the plan
itself? You will find that many of the things you raised above are
answered there.

Been there, read it.

Look, I'm with you that a flat tax would be better than the current
system. Problem is that it, as opposed to something like the FairTax,
leaves itself open to far more manipulation than the FairTax. The tax
code itself is evidence of just that.

Are you trying to say that Congress cannot **** with the Fair Tax as much
as they can **** with a flat tax? I don't think so.


--
Sleep well tonight....RD (The Sandman)

If you woke up this morning....
Don't complain.