To get back to this point, just because business have operations here doesn't mean they will sell their goods here. Last I checked companies don't tend to have actual things for sale in tax havens, they just setup a headquarters there to take advantage of the country for tax purposes. So you might start seeing Japanese companies setting up headquarters in Hawaii but that doesn't mean you are going to start seeing a flood of Japanese goods into the US because of it. And it wouldn't necessarily even bring in more jobs, because they would most likely man these places with people from their own country rather then Americans.
Ok, so if we become a tax haven for companies, and the options are that it either creates jobs, or people come to the US to man them (no easy task for legal immigration) and the people here have to spend to live and are taxed. Still seems like a win.
Mr. latimer, I know you probably fancy yourself a tough guy, one of the "strong" who doesn't want to be "weakened", but I've got a prediction: One day, your strength will wane, and then you'll be pretty damn happy there's a safety net that came at the expense of . . . yes, taxes.
No, I think when my strength wanes, I won't be there wishing I had spent more time dealing with government bureaucrats, I'll wish I had spent more time with my family and friends. It is not the government that makes this country great.
They will. I base this on when the sales taxes were increased in Germany not too long ago. Things became more expensive, despite sinking costs for enterprises in other tax areas.
Were all other taxes on the federal level also eliminated in Germany? From what I understand Germany also has an income tax and a VAT. You can't create a strawman and expect your argument against it to hold up here.
I'm not creating a strawman, will you stop trying to find a logical fallacy in everything and actually try to understand what I'm trying to say? You won't scare me away, trust me. The sales tax was increased and costs for enterprises were decreased. It's not like all cost was eliminated, or that all tax is now on sales tax, it is simply a slight shifting from one tax source to another. You see effects like I described on that level, so the situation here implies that if you do a similar thing on a larger scale, the effects will be similar, but on a larger scale.
ad 1.: The poorest aside, wouldn't that hit middle class families the hardest? They have intermediate income and are taxed according to that. Now people richer than that don't pay more tax (percentage-wise) than they any more. Therefore, the rich gain an advantage as opposed to before and accumulate more wealth. Guess where that wealth comes from. I can't say anything about your embedded tax argument, though, for I am not familiar with the American tax system, as it does not apply to me.
ad 2.: My second point was that trusting the "laws of capitalism" too much might be faulty. When the Euro was introduced in Germany, there was a massive price jump in certain areas, mainly food. Competition failed to get it back down on a normal level. If you make a change that gives businesses more money, they will be reluctant to hand that to their customers. If you take money away from them, they will immediately hand the costs to their customers. Competition all well and good, but shit runs downhill, in every system.
ad 3.: If the families are compensated sufficiently, then my argument is defeated. However, taking money away from them (higher sales tax) and then giving it back to them (pre-bate) introduces a new source for errors. What if the officials responsible for the pre-bate screw up? What if pre-bate is not increased equally as the living costs increase?
ad 4.: I understand the difference between Fair Tax and Flat Tax. I put them together, because I am of the opinion that they have the same problem, which would be increasing cost for the poor and decreasing cost for the rich. Of course you can try to prevent that with subventions for the socially weak, but either way, the rich will pay less than before, thus get more money, and accumulate, as pointed out above, more wealth, which will be missing in other parts of society.
I'm not creating a strawman, will you stop trying to find a logical fallacy in everything and actually try to understand what I'm trying to say? You won't scare me away, trust me. The sales tax was increased and costs for enterprises were decreased. It's not like all cost was eliminated, or that all tax is now on sales tax, it is simply a slight shifting from one tax source to another. You see effects like I described on that level, so the situation here implies that if you do a similar thing on a larger scale, the effects will be similar, but on a larger scale.
Can you tell me the exact amount that a sales tax needs to be increased to raise an equal amount of revenue from a decrease in an income tax and VAT combined? Was this even the intention in Germany?
You're comparing apples to duck a l'orange. Sure, its all food (taxes), both even pertain to fruit (sales taxes), but they are not the same. The fact of the matter is that you are taking a system that is not the Fair Tax, and attacking it in an attempt to discredit the Fair Tax.
No, I cannot tell you the exact amount. I also will admit that the German system cannot really be compared to the American system, but you're missing the point. I am not trying to discredit the Fair Tax, because I don't care about it, as it does not apply to me. I am merely pointing out that it has been observed that shifting from income to sales has had this effect. It does not even matter what the exact amounts are, because the gist of it is that instead of making someone pay according to his income, you charge according to their purchases. This will of course disadvantage those with little to medium income and a need to purchase a lot of things. This is the theory. The changes in Germany are my example.
I've pretty much given up on trying to convince nlatimer that fair tax is bad, not because its not, but because I feel like I'm beating a dead horse. I will say this though, I think that the burden of proof is not on us, because the current system works fine (not perfectly, but neither does democracy,) but rather on you to prove to us that Fair Tax actually would work. Something more then hearsay, like examples of other countries or places having tried it and used it successfully.
Mr. latimer, I know you probably fancy yourself a tough guy, one of the "strong" who doesn't want to be "weakened", but I've got a prediction: One day, your strength will wane, and then you'll be pretty damn happy there's a safety net that came at the expense of . . . yes, taxes.
No, I think when my strength wanes, I won't be there wishing I had spent more time dealing with government bureaucrats, I'll wish I had spent more time with my family and friends. It is not the government that makes this country great.
So . . . how much time do actually you spend "dealing" with the dastardly "government bureaucrats"? Is time spent on taxes really one of your gripes?
I am merely pointing out that it has been observed that shifting from income to sales has had this effect.
But you're not shifting from an income tax to a sales tax, you still have both of them, all three considering a VAT. You're just changing the numbers around, its extremely intrusive and the cost of compliance alone is a major drag on their economy.
I think that the burden of proof is not on us, because the current system works fine (not perfectly, but neither does democracy,) but rather on you to prove to us that Fair Tax actually would work.
The beauty of our system is that nothing really has to be proven to those who don't wish to see it, simply to our representatives, and those can always be replaced.
I am merely pointing out that it has been observed that shifting from income to sales has had this effect.
But you're not shifting from an income tax to a sales tax, you still have both of them, all three considering a VAT. You're just changing the numbers around, its extremely intrusive and the cost of compliance alone is a major drag on their economy.
Sorry, I can't comment that in any other way than asking you what the hell you are talking about.
I think that the burden of proof is not on us, because the current system works fine (not perfectly, but neither does democracy,) but rather on you to prove to us that Fair Tax actually would work.
The beauty of our system is that nothing really has to be proven to those who don't wish to see it, simply to our representatives, and those can always be replaced.
So what you are saying is that your system has no scientific way of proving that it would in fact actually work, and be a better system other then rhetoric. Sounds to me like we can end this thread right here, because otherwise you might as well say you have ESP.
Grammatical irony I guess? Anyway, it has been corrected.
"Hominem" is pronounced the same as "homonym". Different words that are pronounced the same are called homonyms. Spell check doesn't fix everything, people.
So what you are saying is that your system has no scientific way of proving that it would in fact actually work, and be a better system other then rhetoric. Sounds to me like we can end this thread right here, because otherwise you might as well say you have ESP.
I didn't say that at all. There is more than ample research supporting the Fair Tax, most of which can be found at FairTax.org The text of the bill itself, HR25 and S1025, can be found at Library of Congress' website, and numerous others. But you want proof that it works, all I'm saying is that we'll give it to you, as soon as we get it passed.
But you want proof that it works, all I'm saying is that we'll give it to you, as soon as we get it passed.
Well there is your problem right there. You need proof to pass it, so saying it can only be proved after the fact just means that it's not worth passing now. Come back and argue when you can actually back up your statements with proof and facts.
His first complaint is that the Fair Tax doesn't include spending reform, we really have to fight this one battle at a time. He also complains about efficiencies in the Fair Tax, which would save money, causing less spending.
The first lie he claims is false, one could use the monthly prebate to buy only food with it and purchase all other items used and pay no taxes. And many supporters of the income tax system do claim it to be voluntary, its amazing to watch politicians claim this around April 15th, yet they do it every single year.
The second lie is also false. In your example of the McDonald's employee who spends all of his income and is taxed on what he spends, 30% of what he spent is not spent on taxes. It is 23%, quoted the same way our income taxes are now.
The third lie, well I think you see a pattern here, false. While a government bureaucracy will be needed to ensure compliance, it will certainly would be no more than what systems currently exist to collect corporate taxes and the IRS combined, and would not possess the IRS' intrusive authority over the lives of citizens.
His first problem is a blatant lie, every receipt would be required to state the rate of taxation and the amount of tax paid.
His second problem obviously contradicts his first lie. If millions of Americans will pay no tax at all, how can it be involuntary?
And since I'm getting tired of debating all his problems at the moment, maybe I'll take care of the rest later, his seventh problem, is false. Since the Fair Tax is so easy to understand, it is obvious to even a casual observer the effect that any tax raise will have. Since every receipt is required to state the amount of tax, you cannot simply sneak in a tax increase. All one has to do is look down at your receipt to know if there is a change.
Well there is your problem right there. You need proof to pass it, so saying it can only be proved after the fact just means that it's not worth passing now. Come back and argue when you can actually back up your statements with proof and facts.
Comments
The sales tax was increased and costs for enterprises were decreased. It's not like all cost was eliminated, or that all tax is now on sales tax, it is simply a slight shifting from one tax source to another. You see effects like I described on that level, so the situation here implies that if you do a similar thing on a larger scale, the effects will be similar, but on a larger scale.
@Jaybob: Let me explain my points.
ad 1.: The poorest aside, wouldn't that hit middle class families the hardest? They have intermediate income and are taxed according to that. Now people richer than that don't pay more tax (percentage-wise) than they any more. Therefore, the rich gain an advantage as opposed to before and accumulate more wealth. Guess where that wealth comes from.
I can't say anything about your embedded tax argument, though, for I am not familiar with the American tax system, as it does not apply to me.
ad 2.: My second point was that trusting the "laws of capitalism" too much might be faulty. When the Euro was introduced in Germany, there was a massive price jump in certain areas, mainly food. Competition failed to get it back down on a normal level. If you make a change that gives businesses more money, they will be reluctant to hand that to their customers. If you take money away from them, they will immediately hand the costs to their customers. Competition all well and good, but shit runs downhill, in every system.
ad 3.: If the families are compensated sufficiently, then my argument is defeated. However, taking money away from them (higher sales tax) and then giving it back to them (pre-bate) introduces a new source for errors. What if the officials responsible for the pre-bate screw up? What if pre-bate is not increased equally as the living costs increase?
ad 4.: I understand the difference between Fair Tax and Flat Tax. I put them together, because I am of the opinion that they have the same problem, which would be increasing cost for the poor and decreasing cost for the rich. Of course you can try to prevent that with subventions for the socially weak, but either way, the rich will pay less than before, thus get more money, and accumulate, as pointed out above, more wealth, which will be missing in other parts of society.
You're comparing apples to duck a l'orange. Sure, its all food (taxes), both even pertain to fruit (sales taxes), but they are not the same. The fact of the matter is that you are taking a system that is not the Fair Tax, and attacking it in an attempt to discredit the Fair Tax.
It does not even matter what the exact amounts are, because the gist of it is that instead of making someone pay according to his income, you charge according to their purchases. This will of course disadvantage those with little to medium income and a need to purchase a lot of things. This is the theory. The changes in Germany are my example.
There is more than ample research supporting the Fair Tax, most of which can be found at FairTax.org
The text of the bill itself, HR25 and S1025, can be found at Library of Congress' website, and numerous others.
But you want proof that it works, all I'm saying is that we'll give it to you, as soon as we get it passed.
The first lie he claims is false, one could use the monthly prebate to buy only food with it and purchase all other items used and pay no taxes. And many supporters of the income tax system do claim it to be voluntary, its amazing to watch politicians claim this around April 15th, yet they do it every single year.
The second lie is also false. In your example of the McDonald's employee who spends all of his income and is taxed on what he spends, 30% of what he spent is not spent on taxes. It is 23%, quoted the same way our income taxes are now.
The third lie, well I think you see a pattern here, false. While a government bureaucracy will be needed to ensure compliance, it will certainly would be no more than what systems currently exist to collect corporate taxes and the IRS combined, and would not possess the IRS' intrusive authority over the lives of citizens.
His first problem is a blatant lie, every receipt would be required to state the rate of taxation and the amount of tax paid.
His second problem obviously contradicts his first lie. If millions of Americans will pay no tax at all, how can it be involuntary?
And since I'm getting tired of debating all his problems at the moment, maybe I'll take care of the rest later, his seventh problem, is false. Since the Fair Tax is so easy to understand, it is obvious to even a casual observer the effect that any tax raise will have. Since every receipt is required to state the amount of tax, you cannot simply sneak in a tax increase. All one has to do is look down at your receipt to know if there is a change.