'Fair' income taxation

Enjoying all the comments and debate. I admit, there's a lot I don't know about this issue. The facts seem endless. I see good arguments on both sides. I think we can all agree whatever the solution it must be simpler. I do a lot of thinking out loud and appreciate the congenial candor on this board.

Read this book and I think you will be on board. Only bureaucrats, IRS agents, tax consultants and financial advisors want to keep the status quo. If I made my living on helping people through the IRS maze I would probably fell the same way.



You can purchase this book and others about the fairtax at www.fairtax.org

30,000/100,000? :shock:

Read this book and I think you will be on board. Only bureaucrats, IRS agents, tax consultants and financial advisors want to keep the status quo. If I made my living on helping people through the IRS maze I would probably fell the same way.



You can purchase this book and others about the fairtax at www.fairtax.org

Make sure you get the book with the corrections-Boortz and Linder made a few errors the first go-round.

Here is a strong rebuttal to their arguement.

FactCheck.org: Unspinning the FairTax

While I am a Certified Financial Planner, I am confounded by the IRS maze.

My major concern is that the fair tax will only be effective if the rate is much higher 30%-40%.

From Bruce Bartlett, economic advisor to Reagan and GW Bush

FairTax - Bartlett's critique#

"One problem with analyzing the distributional consequences of the FairTax is that its supporters sometimes argue that after-tax incomes will rise by enough to pay the higher prices for goods and services once the 23 percent is added to the prices people pay today. At other times, they argue that prices will fall once income taxes currently embedded in prices are removed, implying a free lunch in which everyone is better off and no one is worse off. Actually, it?s a double free lunch because not only do you get to keep all the taxes currently withheld and pay no more for goods and services now, but you get the rebate as well..."

If you believe in the tax fairy.....


The author closes with:

The most important question to ask, I believe is - "If the FairTax is revenue neutral, someone groups will pay less in taxes than they do now, some more. Who will pay more?" Usually the answers I get are "it doesn't matter" (sure), "no one" (which is impossible if the FairTax is revenue neutral) or "tourists and illegal immigrants who are now paying sales taxes" (but the FairTaxers will argue that the FairTaxes are just replacing the 'embedded' taxes in prices; so if you believe that this must be false as well).

The real answer: People making between $30,000 and $200,000 a year

From Bruce Bartlett, economic advisor to Reagan and GW Bush

FairTax - Bartlett's critique#

"One problem with analyzing the distributional consequences of the FairTax is that its supporters sometimes argue that after-tax incomes will rise by enough to pay the higher prices for goods and services once the 23 percent is added to the prices people pay today. At other times, they argue that prices will fall once income taxes currently embedded in prices are removed, implying a free lunch in which everyone is better off and no one is worse off. Actually, it?s a double free lunch because not only do you get to keep all the taxes currently withheld and pay no more for goods and services now, but you get the rebate as well..."

If you believe in the tax fairy.....


The author closes with:

The most important question to ask, I believe is - "If the FairTax is revenue neutral, someone groups will pay less in taxes than they do now, some more. Who will pay more?" Usually the answers I get are "it doesn't matter" (sure), "no one" (which is impossible if the FairTax is revenue neutral) or "tourists and illegal immigrants who are now paying sales taxes" (but the FairTaxers will argue that the FairTaxes are just replacing the 'embedded' taxes in prices; so if you believe that this must be false as well).

The real answer: People making between $30,000 and $200,000 a year

I cetainly understand why no one would want to risk making changes to our current system because it is sooooo fair, soooooo easy to understand and stimulates soooooo much investment and economic growth. No reason to try something different when what we have has worked soooooooo well.:sarc::sarc::sarc:

What would be the difference, those making 30,000 to 200,000 "contribute" the most already.

I am very familiar with the proposal and at 24% it is not sufficient to replace all the taxes that are cancelled-unless there is a magical tax fairy.
...

Maybe we (the government) buy too much crap.

Do we have a $50K/$100K?