One odd side effect is illegal drugs would be essentially tax free.
Fair Tax: Yay or Nay
- Thread starter Ecofarm
- Start date
Ecofarm
Deity
I found a nice website with pyramids for almost every country.
Choose country, scroll down, output (summary/select years), graph size, submit query.
http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/pyramids.html
Fair enough, we are still a few years from hourglasses, but the trend is rather established.
Spoiler :
Enjoy the site, it's free, easy to use, has nice graphics, and has (some?) credibility.
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
Ahh - thanks for the laugh! I love reading people that actually believe that garbage.
-- Ravensfire
JerichoHill
Bedrock of Knowledge
That demographic shift is already occuring.
To EcoFarm above,
Sadly, in my profession, as with many others that are highly political, its easy to find "experts" who will agree with a premise or attach a signature, especially if there is money involved.
This year, I acted as the government's statistical and economical expert in 3 lawsuits brought forth against people/groups across this nation. Since much of the evidence was buried in data, I went to work crunching numbers.
In all three cases, the defendan's statistical experts either improperly handled their databases and screwed up, grossly lied about their results, or deliberately introduced confounding factors. In all three cases, my work exposed their (best case) incompetence, and worst case (willful deceit).
2007 is not unusual insofar as this goes. There are hundreds of demographers, economists, etc who will gladly back up bad ideas for money.
A national consumption based sales tax is one of these very bad ideas. The problem in our current income tax code lies not in its progressive nature, nor in its redistributive properties, but in its massive book of loopholes written in by policitians as favors for lobbyists and donors.
The income tax system currently is somewhat retrogressive, as the wealthiest can use large tax shelters to pay less in tax than middle-class folks. However, moving to a consumption based tax would require a special exception regime for basic goods that wouldn't be taxes, a body to monitor people's incomes (for poverty or rebate reasons). Rich households already consume less goods "proportion wise" than poorer households, rich households save a much larger portion of each paycheck.
If anything, this scheme leaves an IRS like entity intact and increases the income gap
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Well, for it to be a 'huge tax hike' would totally depend on what 'consumables' were taxed and at what rate.
Ecofarm
Deity
1) There is no need for 99% of the current regime for regulation and enforcement. There is no special exception. There is no income monitoring. Everyone pays the tax at the time of purchase, and everyone gets ~23% of ~12k in rebate every year. No paperwork beyond a mailing address.
2) That the income gap would be increased is pure speculation. There is no reason to believe that the 'fair tax' system would be less fair than the current joke of technical crap used to rob middle and lower class taxpayers while exempting those with means to hire attorneys. If anything, it levels the playing field. How can you say that a more level playing field (pretty obviously) means less fair results?
It is only natural that tax attorneys and accountants (a majority of economics degrees) oppose the 'fair tax' system. Their jobs are on the line! For them to argue for the 'fair tax' is to argue for their own obsoletion. It's also natural for a majority of politicians to oppose the system, because they rely on lobbyist money/"tax" "law" kickbacks to remain in office.
JerichoHill
Bedrock of Knowledge
@@Ecofarm There is no need for 99% of the current regime for regulation and enforcement. There is no special exception. There is no income monitoring. Everyone pays the tax at the time of purchase, and everyone gets ~23% of ~12k in rebate every year. No paperwork beyond a mailing address.
How do you know that folks are accurately reporting their income? How do you process the returns? Check for errors?
Businesses can be sole owners, a small group, a corporate body, a non-profit, etc. How does your small rebate encourage consumption? I'm pretty savvy with economics. If you go to a consumption tax, I'm going to avoid consuming, and save a ton, and retire early, and move somewhere else that probably has a lower tax bracket anyways. Because I know that under a consumption tax, I would be better off, I would move my wealth elsewhere, I figure anyone with any wealth or any sense would do the same thing. Besides, I don't have a problem with a progressive tax system, since the wealthier earners receive more benefit (mainly from private property rights).
2) That the income gap would be increased is pure speculation. There is no reason to believe that the 'fair tax' system would be less fair than the current joke of technical crap used to rob middle and lower class taxpayers while exempting those with means to hire attorneys. If anything, it levels the playing field. How can you say that a more level playing field (pretty obviously) means less fair results?
It is a given fact that the richer one is, the less one spends on consumpable items. Therefore, a tax on consumption, ceteris paribus, affects those at lower incomes than it does at higher incomes. Sorry, but that is just simple freaking math. Of course our tax code is a mess, but that doesn't mean replacing it with just anything
It is only natural that tax attorneys and accountants (a majority of economics degrees) oppose the 'fair tax' system.
Actually, most accountants have accounting and CPA degrees, not economists. A good many economists actually like the fair tax idea, but I don't know of many economists who do applied (ie, not theoretical) work who feel a consumption tax is the panacea its made out to be by FairTax Advocates.
It's also natural for a majority of politicians to oppose the system, because they rely on lobbyist money/"tax" "law" kickbacks to remain in office.
btw, nice no sell on ignoring my point that a whole slew of experts are just paid to say what their employers want.
Well then, how the hell do you pass this into law when the very folks who have the power to pass it into law are propped up by the current system? Kinda futile!
How do you know that folks are accurately reporting their income? How do you process the returns? Check for errors?
Businesses can be sole owners, a small group, a corporate body, a non-profit, etc. How does your small rebate encourage consumption? I'm pretty savvy with economics. If you go to a consumption tax, I'm going to avoid consuming, and save a ton, and retire early, and move somewhere else that probably has a lower tax bracket anyways. Because I know that under a consumption tax, I would be better off, I would move my wealth elsewhere, I figure anyone with any wealth or any sense would do the same thing. Besides, I don't have a problem with a progressive tax system, since the wealthier earners receive more benefit (mainly from private property rights).
2) That the income gap would be increased is pure speculation. There is no reason to believe that the 'fair tax' system would be less fair than the current joke of technical crap used to rob middle and lower class taxpayers while exempting those with means to hire attorneys. If anything, it levels the playing field. How can you say that a more level playing field (pretty obviously) means less fair results?
It is a given fact that the richer one is, the less one spends on consumpable items. Therefore, a tax on consumption, ceteris paribus, affects those at lower incomes than it does at higher incomes. Sorry, but that is just simple freaking math. Of course our tax code is a mess, but that doesn't mean replacing it with just anything
It is only natural that tax attorneys and accountants (a majority of economics degrees) oppose the 'fair tax' system.
Actually, most accountants have accounting and CPA degrees, not economists. A good many economists actually like the fair tax idea, but I don't know of many economists who do applied (ie, not theoretical) work who feel a consumption tax is the panacea its made out to be by FairTax Advocates.
It's also natural for a majority of politicians to oppose the system, because they rely on lobbyist money/"tax" "law" kickbacks to remain in office.
btw, nice no sell on ignoring my point that a whole slew of experts are just paid to say what their employers want.
Well then, how the hell do you pass this into law when the very folks who have the power to pass it into law are propped up by the current system? Kinda futile!
JerichoHill
Bedrock of Knowledge
Mostly, this would spur more investment by the richer folks. Now Mobboss, the question is whether this investment would be invested internally or whether it would be invested externally. If its invested overseas, then it kinda doesn't help the US. And since most of the better investment opportunities are now overseas, I don't like dem odds
Murky
Deity
Neal Boortz is a ******** a...shole.
Ecofarm
Deity
Ok, 1 more time: There is NO income reporting. There is NO return processing. There are NO errors. Every registered worker gets the same rebate check. Is... it... sinking... in?
Putting money in people's pockets does not promote consumption? Ok.
The richer someone is, the less someone spends? Did you miss the idea that this is a sales tax? Do you honestly think that rich people spend less money than poor people? Obviously, the rich spend more money, and thus, will pay more in sales taxes. Especially in the absense of the current loopholes.
Well, I think that happens in pretty much every single field of research. Do I really need to give you a
for pointing out an obvious universal truth? If you mean that such a statement proves that those supporting the 'fair tax' are all paid cronies, well... no it doesn't.Grassroots activism. For example: CFC OT. Power to the people! The revolution will not be televised. All that good stuff.
Ecofarm
Deity
Then he should pay his employees more. [/removes tongue from cheek]
Would that have an inflationary effect? Sticker shock leading employees to demand more to keep up, even though they're taking home more? I doubt it would, but I do wonder, since people aren't exactly perfectly rational. What's been the experience in countries that went with it?
JerichoHill
Bedrock of Knowledge
Ok, 1 more time: There is NO income reporting. There is NO return processing. There are NO errors. Every registered worker gets the same rebate check. Is... it... sinking... in?
So, there's a central agency for registered workers then? Ah HAH!
Putting money in people's pockets does not promote consumption? Ok.
Correct. There are two concepts at play. They're called the Marginal Propensity to Save and the Marginal Propensity to Consume (MPS and MPC for short). As income rises, MPS increases while MPC declines, and vice versa. So, putting more disposable income in people's pockets will increase both MPS and MPC, but which one and how much, and which one is more?
The richer someone is, the less someone spends? Did you miss the idea that this is a sales tax? Do you honestly think that rich people spend less money than poor people?
How much more, as a percentage of their income, do rich people save, than poor people. One of the classic reasons/symptons of poverty is living paycheck to paycheck. Wealthy people do not live paycheck to paycheck, thus they must be saving more. Again, this is all related to MPS, a very basic economic concept.
Obviously, the rich spend more money, and thus, will pay more in sales taxes. Especially in the absense of the current loopholes.
Obviously the rich will buy their goods over the internet tax free. Or they shift their money overseas and all of a sudden it can't be taxed! Wow!
Grassroots activism. For example: CFC OT. Power to the people! The revolution will not be televised. All that good stuff.
Some very wise men once said: Cash Rules Everything Around Me. Sorry, but grassroots? Half of America is told to hate the other half. They'll just create a new abortion debate and move on.
However, you can either accept what I'm saying, dismiss it, or take part of it. You have a mind and you can make yours up. But don't listen to the talking heads behind the fair tax, they're just as bad as the lobbyists. When I speak about economics,specific economics, on CFC, I do my best to talk about it on neutral, fact-based terms. A FairTax plan is most likely going to lead to retrogressive outcomes and capital investment outflow.
So, there's a central agency for registered workers then? Ah HAH!
Putting money in people's pockets does not promote consumption? Ok.
Correct. There are two concepts at play. They're called the Marginal Propensity to Save and the Marginal Propensity to Consume (MPS and MPC for short). As income rises, MPS increases while MPC declines, and vice versa. So, putting more disposable income in people's pockets will increase both MPS and MPC, but which one and how much, and which one is more?
The richer someone is, the less someone spends? Did you miss the idea that this is a sales tax? Do you honestly think that rich people spend less money than poor people?
How much more, as a percentage of their income, do rich people save, than poor people. One of the classic reasons/symptons of poverty is living paycheck to paycheck. Wealthy people do not live paycheck to paycheck, thus they must be saving more. Again, this is all related to MPS, a very basic economic concept.
Obviously, the rich spend more money, and thus, will pay more in sales taxes. Especially in the absense of the current loopholes.
Obviously the rich will buy their goods over the internet tax free. Or they shift their money overseas and all of a sudden it can't be taxed! Wow!
Grassroots activism. For example: CFC OT. Power to the people! The revolution will not be televised. All that good stuff.
Some very wise men once said: Cash Rules Everything Around Me. Sorry, but grassroots? Half of America is told to hate the other half. They'll just create a new abortion debate and move on.
However, you can either accept what I'm saying, dismiss it, or take part of it. You have a mind and you can make yours up. But don't listen to the talking heads behind the fair tax, they're just as bad as the lobbyists. When I speak about economics,specific economics, on CFC, I do my best to talk about it on neutral, fact-based terms. A FairTax plan is most likely going to lead to retrogressive outcomes and capital investment outflow.
JerichoHill
Bedrock of Knowledge
We don't know what the effect would be because the velocity of money would be affected. In some respects, certain desireable items would see their prices raised, but those might be luxury goods. I don't believe any criticism of a FairTax plan is that it would create inflation.
Kraznaya
Princeps
I found a nice website with pyramids for almost every country.
Choose country, scroll down, output (summary/select years), graph size, submit query.
http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/pyramids.html
Fair enough, we are still a few years from hourglasses, but the trend is rather established.
Spoiler :
Enjoy the site, it's free, easy to use, has nice graphics, and has (some?) credibility.
I'm not too sure of their predictions of Kenya in 43 years, but ok... I guess?
Note how even the link claims that these are population pyramids, not hourglasses. I also thought that an hourglass would need to look like this.
JohnRM
Don't make me destroy you
Just about anything is better than keeping the IRS or the Federal Income Tax. I would rather see a lower flat income tax rate, but I doubt that will ever happen.
Murky
Deity
I haven't listened to talk radio for a long time and I rarely visit moveon.org.
Boortz is anything but a god. He looks like he evolved from a toad instead of primate.
Gogf
Indescribable
If it's not going to be regressive, the government needs some way to identify low-income workers, and it needs some way to allow them to pay less taxes when they buy goods. That means humiliation for poor people buying goods, scams to get fake tax-ID cards, unreliable income reporting, and a massive new bureaucracy. It's one of the worst ideas I've heard in a while.
JerichoHill
Bedrock of Knowledge
Interpolation is much more reliable than extrapolation
(with regards to population estimates of growth)
(with regards to population estimates of growth)
Similar threads
- Poll
