The Moderate Voice - Latest Comments in On “Fair” Taxes

Re: On “Fair” Taxes

jwest — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 20:56:49 -0000

Ryan,

I see the problem.

You believe that corporations pay taxes with money that comes from some source other than private individuals. The reality is that regardless if the individual pays or the corporation passes it through in the price of goods or services, it all comes from the consumers.

This is one of the reasons companies will be able to lower their sales prices so that once the Fair Tax is added, the difference will be small.

Read through the plan at the website I provided above, or better yet, buy the book. Once you spend some time getting all the details, I think you’ll find the FTP is the best way to revise the tax code, stimulate the economy and bring manufacturing back to the U.S.

Re: On “Fair” Taxes

Ryan — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:59:46 -0000

"Every US citizen will be better off..." Really. Every last one of them? Even the ones who are currently paying < 23% of their income in taxes?

See, one of the first points I made was that as a revenue-neutral program, someone is necessarily going to get hosed, and considering that part of the plan is abolishing corporate income tax, a lot of someones are going to have to pick up the slack. This plan also heavily subsidizes running over the border to buy cheap stuff, and god help you if you&#39re trying to compete with someone 100 miles away who doesn&#39t have to put a 30% markup on everything, so American loses, Canadian / Mexican wins.

Re: On “Fair” Taxes

jwest — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 18:41:04 -0000

Ryan,

You’re kind of “glass half empty” kind of guy, aren’t you?

As far as double taxing of any savings when the program is instituted, you’re right. It’s one of those unavoidable things, but luckily, most Americans have no savings.

Yes, imports would be 23% more expensive, less whatever the retailer used to figure in for their income taxes and employer contribution to social security. But, isn’t this what we’re trying to do – encourage domestic production, reduce the cost benefit of low-wage country competition and open a revenue stream from foreign companies that are making billions in the U.S. without paying any taxes?

There is no one more free market oriented than I, so trust me when I say that this plan encourages foreign investment and competition. Every U.S. citizen will be better off with the Fair Tax Plan as opposed to the current income tax.

Re: On “Fair” Taxes

Ryan — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 18:16:41 -0000

jwest - it wouldn&#39t make the cost equal, it would make imports 30% more expensive, since the foreign companies would be paying double taxes - first in their home country which hasn&#39t adopted the sales tax, and second when they sell in the US. That seems like a pretty miserable way of taking on the trade deficit. Same deal on tourism, or cross-border shopping. Speaking of which, if you live in North Dakota, all of a sudden there&#39s a 23% discount on anything you buy in Canada (and a 30% hike on anything they want to buy from you.)

I also note the immediate reduction in the value of any savings you have, which would get double-taxed. I&#39m not sure this really qualifies as &#39equal&#39 or &#39fair&#39. Wishful thinking, maybe.

Re: On “Fair” Taxes

DLS — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 18:06:55 -0000

"No, we don’t need a magic wand to find new money, just a system that makes the U.S. the most desirable place to do business instead of envy/punish-the-rich based system."

I asked a friend once in Seattle what it would have been like, a) if New York City (apex of liberalism, the city bankrupted itself as a result) had been like classic Hong Kong instead; and the b) what if the entire long-Democratic-and-liberal Northeast Corridor were like classic Hong Kong instead.

Re: On “Fair” Taxes

DLS — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 18:04:57 -0000

"Lighting and especially heating the roads is exactly the type of thinking that is needed to promote a true stimulus plan like this."

That means more, not less, energy use (as is true with higher, respectable speeds for high-speed rail).

Of course, more energy use (growing orders of magnitude) is historically associated with progress. You can&#39t get something for nothing.

"Things that would be inconceivable to minds locked in the depravation mode are achievable by having unlimited power."

Yep -- the depraved believe we in the USA (especially) and the rest of the West should deprive ourselves.

Re: On “Fair” Taxes

jwest — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 15:56:49 -0000

Ryan,

I see the problem.

You believe that corporations pay taxes with money that comes from some source other than private individuals. The reality is that regardless if the individual pays or the corporation passes it through in the price of goods or services, it all comes from the consumers.

This is one of the reasons companies will be able to lower their sales prices so that once the Fair Tax is added, the difference will be small.

Read through the plan at the website I provided above, or better yet, buy the book. Once you spend some time getting all the details, I think you’ll find the FTP is the best way to revise the tax code, stimulate the economy and bring manufacturing back to the U.S.

Re: On “Fair” Taxes

jwest — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 15:20:49 -0000

Ryan,

Florida does not have any income tax – their main source of revenue is the sales tax – and they haven’t destroyed the tourist industry.

Free trade thrives with this type of system. It places all producers on a level playing field by making the governmental cost equal between domestic and foreign suppliers.

Over 80% of retail sales are done through (in one form or another) major corporations. These are the easiest to monitor. Even the smallest of retail outlets would have a hard time avoiding taxes because the calculation is a simple percentage of gross sales, as opposed to a complex conflagration of costs, deductions, carry overs, etc.

Simple, transparent, equal, fair. It doesn’t get any better.

Re: On “Fair” Taxes

Ryan — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 15:07:17 -0000

Sounds like a great way to execute the tourism industry. And free trade, come to think of it. And create a massive incentive to cheat the system, since you&#39re losing 23% on every transaction. Sounds great.

Re: On “Fair” Taxes

Ryan — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 14:59:46 -0000

"Every US citizen will be better off..." Really. Every last one of them? Even the ones who are currently paying < 23% of their income in taxes?

See, one of the first points I made was that as a revenue-neutral program, someone is necessarily going to get hosed, and considering that part of the plan is abolishing corporate income tax, a lot of someones are going to have to pick up the slack. This plan also heavily subsidizes running over the border to buy cheap stuff, and god help you if you're trying to compete with someone 100 miles away who doesn't have to put a 30% markup on everything, so American loses, Canadian / Mexican wins.

Re: On “Fair” Taxes

jwest — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 14:41:07 -0000

Ryan,

You’ve asked a logical question.

“…….then necessarily there are going to be winners, who pay less in taxes, and losers, who pay more.”

Naturally, you’re thinking it is the rich who will be the winners and poor who will lose. With the FTP, that’s not the case. Everyone (here) wins.

The large amount of new money comes from sources who never paid taxes to the treasury before. One source is the 26 million tourists who come to the U.S. every year. They haven’t paid any taxes here previously (except for some state of local sales taxes), now they will pay 23% more for products and services. Illegal aliens, regardless of income sources, will pay the same, but without the benefit of being a U.S. citizen, they will not receive the prebate.

All illegal activities that generate money will eventually have to spend it, resulting in a vast income stream to the government.

One of the largest new sources is Chinese, Japanese, European, Indian and other corporations who have never paid any U.S. tax. Every time a foreign product is sold, the U.S. government gets it’s 23%. Think of all the sales at WalMart, Toyota, BMW, etc. and how much this tax on their products will bring in.

No, we don’t need a magic wand to find new money, just a system that makes the U.S. the most desirable place to do business instead of envy/punish-the-rich based system.

Re: On “Fair” Taxes

jwest — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:41:04 -0000

Ryan,

You’re kind of “glass half empty” kind of guy, aren’t you?

As far as double taxing of any savings when the program is instituted, you’re right. It’s one of those unavoidable things, but luckily, most Americans have no savings.

Yes, imports would be 23% more expensive, less whatever the retailer used to figure in for their income taxes and employer contribution to social security. But, isn’t this what we’re trying to do – encourage domestic production, reduce the cost benefit of low-wage country competition and open a revenue stream from foreign companies that are making billions in the U.S. without paying any taxes?

There is no one more free market oriented than I, so trust me when I say that this plan encourages foreign investment and competition. Every U.S. citizen will be better off with the Fair Tax Plan as opposed to the current income tax.

Re: On “Fair” Taxes

Ryan — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:16:41 -0000

jwest - it wouldn't make the cost equal, it would make imports 30% more expensive, since the foreign companies would be paying double taxes - first in their home country which hasn't adopted the sales tax, and second when they sell in the US. That seems like a pretty miserable way of taking on the trade deficit. Same deal on tourism, or cross-border shopping. Speaking of which, if you live in North Dakota, all of a sudden there's a 23% discount on anything you buy in Canada (and a 30% hike on anything they want to buy from you.)

I also note the immediate reduction in the value of any savings you have, which would get double-taxed. I'm not sure this really qualifies as 'equal' or 'fair'. Wishful thinking, maybe.

Re: On “Fair” Taxes

DLS — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:06:55 -0000

"No, we don’t need a magic wand to find new money, just a system that makes the U.S. the most desirable place to do business instead of envy/punish-the-rich based system."

I asked a friend once in Seattle what it would have been like, a) if New York City (apex of liberalism, the city bankrupted itself as a result) had been like classic Hong Kong instead; and the b) what if the entire long-Democratic-and-liberal Northeast Corridor were like classic Hong Kong instead.

Re: On “Fair” Taxes

DLS — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:04:57 -0000

"Lighting and especially heating the roads is exactly the type of thinking that is needed to promote a true stimulus plan like this."

That means more, not less, energy use (as is true with higher, respectable speeds for high-speed rail).

Of course, more energy use (growing orders of magnitude) is historically associated with progress. You can't get something for nothing.

"Things that would be inconceivable to minds locked in the depravation mode are achievable by having unlimited power."

Yep -- the depraved believe we in the USA (especially) and the rest of the West should deprive ourselves.

Re: On “Fair” Taxes

jwest — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 10:20:49 -0000

Ryan,

Florida does not have any income tax – their main source of revenue is the sales tax – and they haven’t destroyed the tourist industry.

Free trade thrives with this type of system. It places all producers on a level playing field by making the governmental cost equal between domestic and foreign suppliers.

Over 80% of retail sales are done through (in one form or another) major corporations. These are the easiest to monitor. Even the smallest of retail outlets would have a hard time avoiding taxes because the calculation is a simple percentage of gross sales, as opposed to a complex conflagration of costs, deductions, carry overs, etc.

Simple, transparent, equal, fair. It doesn’t get any better.

Re: On “Fair” Taxes

Ryan — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 10:07:17 -0000

Sounds like a great way to execute the tourism industry. And free trade, come to think of it. And create a massive incentive to cheat the system, since you're losing 23% on every transaction. Sounds great.

Re: On “Fair” Taxes

jwest — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 09:41:07 -0000

Ryan,

You’ve asked a logical question.

“…….then necessarily there are going to be winners, who pay less in taxes, and losers, who pay more.”

Naturally, you’re thinking it is the rich who will be the winners and poor who will lose. With the FTP, that’s not the case. Everyone (here) wins.

The large amount of new money comes from sources who never paid taxes to the treasury before. One source is the 26 million tourists who come to the U.S. every year. They haven’t paid any taxes here previously (except for some state of local sales taxes), now they will pay 23% more for products and services. Illegal aliens, regardless of income sources, will pay the same but without the benefit of being a U.S. citizen, they will not receive the prebate.

All illegal activities that generate money will eventually have to spend it, resulting in a vast income stream to the government.

One of the largest new sources is Chinese, Japanese, European, Indian and other corporations who have never paid any U.S. tax. Every time a foreign product is sold, the U.S. government gets it’s 23%. Think of all the sales at WalMart, Toyota, BMW, etc. and how much this tax on their products will bring in.

No, we don’t need a magic wand to find new money, just a system that makes the U.S. the most desirable place to do business instead of envy/punish-the-rich based system.

Re: On “Fair” Taxes

DaGoat — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 02:39:28 -0000

With a fair tax, the people who would not get richer are the tax attorneys, tax preparers, accountants, IRS employees, etc that currently siphon off a large section of the economy. The remainder theoretically could get richer.

I think people overlook the extent that a fair tax protects the lower wage-earners. As jwest notes people get a check back to offset their taxes.

The one group that would pay a lot more are the wealthy that currently claim no or little income. Since they are often high consumers they will be paying much more than they do now.

Re: On “Fair” Taxes

Ryan — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 23:23:42 -0000

No - I&#39m saying the Fair Tax fails its sanity check. So far you&#39ve said that a) all non-sales taxes will be eliminated; b) the Fair Tax will rake in as much money as the current system, and c) prices will not go up. This effectively increases everyone&#39s real income by 30% overnight. If the tax is revenue-neutral (and assuming someone&#39s tax level changes) then necessarily there are going to be winners, who pay less in taxes, and losers, who pay more. You can&#39t just wave a magic wand and have everyone get richer.

Re: On “Fair” Taxes

jwest — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 22:11:39 -0000

Ryan,

If you are saying that using the stimulus money in a focused program to build 600 new reactors would increase taxes, I disagree.

The stimulus of offering free unlimited power would boost the economy to such a level that taxes could probably be reduced.

If you are saying that instituting the Fair Tax Plan (FTP) would put an additional tax burden on workers, I would disagree. Under the FTP, a worker gets his full pay, with no deductions taken out, plus (most likely) the employer’s share of the old social security payment (about an additional 7%). On top of that, every U.S. citizen would receive a “prebate” check each month, which is equal to the tax on spending at double the poverty line.

Items would not necessarily cost any more due to the savings by companies on their taxes and that of their suppliers.

Hundreds of billions would be collect by the taxes paid by non-citizens on their purchase of items in the U.S. The underground economy would be eliminated because regardless of how money is made, at some point it will be spent. Even if someone cheats on a portion of their spending with a crooked merchant, the majority of their spending will still be taxed elsewhere.

Re: On “Fair” Taxes

Ryan — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 21:53:57 -0000

jwest - all right, but then you have to factor in the increased wages that all the corporations will have to pay to balance the massive tax hike on the workers.

Re: On “Fair” Taxes

jwest — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 21:43:52 -0000

DLS,

Lighting and especially heating the roads is exactly the type of thinking that is needed to promote a true stimulus plan like this.

Things that would be inconceivable to minds locked in the depravation mode are achievable by having unlimited power. The same amount of money already pegged to be spent on foolish projects could be focused on something like this that everyone can draw hope from.

Re: On “Fair” Taxes

$199537 — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 21:39:28 -0000

I think people overlook the extent that a fair tax protects the lower wage-earners. As jwest notes people get a check back to offset their taxes.

The one group that would pay a lot more are the wealthy that currently claim no or little income. Since they are often high consumers they will be paying much more than they do now.

Re: On “Fair” Taxes

DLS — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 21:26:01 -0000

"Instead of concentrating on reduction and conservation, think about a new age of free, unlimited energy."

Many are obscessed with reduction and conservation, though, not only because so many are naive or unrealistic about what conservation can or should be expected to achieve, but because (since the 1960s and advent of radicalism and self-loathing) many want "social controls" and seek a deliberate lowering of our standard of living.

What you say is related to an example as easy to grasp as street lighting. Inductive lighting is now available and more in the news these days is the burgeoning use of LEDs, including LED street lighting. These use much less energy than conventional or "old-fashioned" lighting. A great cost (energy) savings can be achieved as a result, but the childish and naive fail to see what we _can_ do, or worse, reject and resent what can do as a result. We can not merely save costs by replacing what quality and level of illumination we have now, but we needn&#39t limit ourselves to those levels, but instead now change from roads lit at a number of point sources by linear or "area" lighting over roadways, putting much more light on them than ever conceived before as practical or even achieveable. We can light roadways fully, to a much higher level than before, and can now light roadways and other places that didn&#39t make practical or economic sense before. We&#39d be using more energy and more lighting, but (as with health care, for example, something the typical lefty conservationists want _more_ rather than less of) more is a good, not a bad or wrong, thing.

Imagine your (J. West&#39s) scenario applied here. With so much "social" power at hand, we could fully light our Interstate highways at night. Imagine what that would do for safety improvement and reduced stress levels driving at night. Imagine something else related to roads. With effectively unlimited power, in the Snowbelt and other affected places we could embed resistance heating in roadways and keep roadways free of snow and ice in winter by melting it. Not that we&#39ll ever do it, but this is another suitable illustration.