PDA

View Full Version : Thoughts on a flat-tax solution to economic inequality and corruption.



RadioGod
01-15-2019, 04:19 PM
I orginally posted this to another forum member. But I really would like feedback on it. There may be flaws I don't see right now. Weigh in.


Our current federal budget is 4.11 Trillion dollars. If we include State and local budgets, that number becomes 6.41 Trillion. So, it costs us 6 1/2 Trillion per year to run our country right now. If we got rid of all taxes, which would also scrap the IRS and all county auditors by default, and including the scrapping of all state and local taxes, we could come up with that amount from 1 single tax- a universal flat sales tax.

There were 56 Trillion dollars in purchases in 2017 in the US, only 612 Billion of which was at grocery stores. Of those Grocery chain sales, only about 120 billion was on actual food.
If we tax everything except food, we still end up with 55.9 Trillion in taxable sales. If we set our sales tax at 12%, that would be 6.7 Trillion in tax revenues. Distributed correctly, that would cover the entire cost of government as we know it today at 6.41 Trillion.

Bear in mind this would eliminate ALL other forms of taxation. This would also make it so everyone pays their own share equally, and with no IRS, there are no write-offs, refunds, or loopholes. When poor people buy something for a dollar, 12 cents goes to taxes. When a wealthy person buys a $200,000 car, $24,000 goes to taxes. Both the rich and the poor would pay their own way, equal to their economic capacity. And to keep things fair, I have subtracted the 120 billion in actual groceries. I don't think we should pay taxes on food, water, or air, as they are human necessities.

But restaurants, fast food joints, those should be included in the sales tax.

Helena
01-15-2019, 04:30 PM
Is that 12% Federal? Do States still add their sales tax in the mix in your scenario?

Private Pickle
01-15-2019, 04:30 PM
I orginally posted this to another forum member. But I really would like feedback on it. There may be flaws I don't see right now. Weigh in.


Our current federal budget is 4.11 Trillion dollars. If we include State and local budgets, that number becomes 6.41 Trillion. So, it costs us 6 1/2 Trillion per year to run our country right now. If we got rid of all taxes, which would also scrap the IRS and all county auditors by default, and including the scrapping of all state and local taxes, we could come up with that amount from 1 single tax- a universal flat sales tax.

There were 56 Trillion dollars in purchases in 2017 in the US, only 612 Billion of which was at grocery stores. Of those Grocery chain sales, only about 120 billion was on actual food.
If we tax everything except food, we still end up with 55.9 Trillion in taxable sales. If we set our sales tax at 12%, that would be 6.7 Trillion in tax revenues. Distributed correctly, that would cover the entire cost of government as we know it today at 6.41 Trillion.

Bear in mind this would eliminate ALL other forms of taxation. This would also make it so everyone pays their own share equally, and with no IRS, there are no write-offs, refunds, or loopholes. When poor people buy something for a dollar, 12 cents goes to taxes. When a wealthy person buys a $200,000 car, $24,000 goes to taxes. Both the rich and the poor would pay their own way, equal to their economic capacity. And to keep things fair, I have subtracted the 120 billion in actual groceries. I don't think we should pay taxes on food, water, or air, as they are human necessities.

But restaurants, fast food joints, those should be included in the sales tax.





I'm down and yes. Restaurants and fast food joints are part of the entertainment world.

Helena
01-15-2019, 04:46 PM
Is that 12% Federal? Do States still add their sales tax in the mix in your scenario?
Never mind, I read it again and it looks like no.

And if so, with the no.. you know it will likely never get off the ground. Not that it's a bad idea. It's a good idea. It's been a good idea for a long time.

But our monies are taxed and taxed and taxed again, and then put through some more wringers to see if anything else can be squeezed out before you get your spending money to go out there and have it go through the cycle all over again.

I'd like property tax to not be the burden that it is.

Helena
01-15-2019, 04:51 PM
...There may be flaws I don't see right now. ...

This would also make it so everyone pays their own share equally, and with no IRS, there are no write-offs, refunds, or loopholes.



There are your flaws. Those are the reasons a majority of lawbreakermakers will never pass something like this.

Just AnotherPerson
01-15-2019, 05:05 PM
What this would mean is no more free ride for the corporations, and big business. Most dont realize it but we the people are paying the bills of the most wealthy in this nation. We are taxed at least 60% of our earnings. We are taxed on our income, then we are taxed on everything we buy, and then we are taxed on our utilities, and property. The list goes on. The money is redistributed and put into the pockets of the wealthy. It is becasue they are not paying their fair share. By doing this flat tax we truly could end corruption. We could pay off our debt. we could end the IRS. The little guy wouldn't be paying for the big guy anymore, and our nation would flourish and prosper like never before. This would not end government, it would just end the corporations corrupt use of the government to their advantage. Everyone would truly pay their fair share.

There would be no more redistribution of money, taking from the poor, to give to the wealthy. We would no longer be paying their way. With this idea, each person would pay their own way, and it would be equal and fair. The math needs worked up, it needs studied and delved deeply into.

hanger4
01-15-2019, 05:09 PM
I orginally posted this to another forum member. But I really would like feedback on it. There may be flaws I don't see right now. Weigh in.
Our current federal budget is 4.11 Trillion dollars. If we include State and local budgets, that number becomes 6.41 Trillion. So, it costs us 6 1/2 Trillion per year to run our country right now. If we got rid of all taxes, which would also scrap the IRS and all county auditors by default, and including the scrapping of all state and local taxes, we could come up with that amount from 1 single tax- a universal flat sales tax.There were 56 Trillion dollars in purchases in 2017 in the US, only 612 Billion of which was at grocery stores. Of those Grocery chain sales, only about 120 billion was on actual food. If we tax everything except food, we still end up with 55.9 Trillion in taxable sales. If we set our sales tax at 12%, that would be 6.7 Trillion in tax revenues. Distributed correctly, that would cover the entire cost of government as we know it today at 6.41 Trillion. Bear in mind this would eliminate ALL other forms of taxation. This would also make it so everyone pays their own share equally, and with no IRS, there are no write-offs, refunds, or loopholes. When poor people buy something for a dollar, 12 cents goes to taxes. When a wealthy person buys a $200,000 car, $24,000 goes to taxes. Both the rich and the poor would pay their own way, equal to their economic capacity. And to keep things fair, I have subtracted the 120 billion in actual groceries. I don't think we should pay taxes on food, water, or air, as they are human necessities. But restaurants, fast food joints, those should be included in the sales tax.You're describing a consumption tax, not a flat tax.

Chris
01-15-2019, 05:26 PM
I orginally posted this to another forum member. But I really would like feedback on it. There may be flaws I don't see right now. Weigh in.


Our current federal budget is 4.11 Trillion dollars. If we include State and local budgets, that number becomes 6.41 Trillion. So, it costs us 6 1/2 Trillion per year to run our country right now. If we got rid of all taxes, which would also scrap the IRS and all county auditors by default, and including the scrapping of all state and local taxes, we could come up with that amount from 1 single tax- a universal flat sales tax.

There were 56 Trillion dollars in purchases in 2017 in the US, only 612 Billion of which was at grocery stores. Of those Grocery chain sales, only about 120 billion was on actual food.
If we tax everything except food, we still end up with 55.9 Trillion in taxable sales. If we set our sales tax at 12%, that would be 6.7 Trillion in tax revenues. Distributed correctly, that would cover the entire cost of government as we know it today at 6.41 Trillion.

Bear in mind this would eliminate ALL other forms of taxation. This would also make it so everyone pays their own share equally, and with no IRS, there are no write-offs, refunds, or loopholes. When poor people buy something for a dollar, 12 cents goes to taxes. When a wealthy person buys a $200,000 car, $24,000 goes to taxes. Both the rich and the poor would pay their own way, equal to their economic capacity. And to keep things fair, I have subtracted the 120 billion in actual groceries. I don't think we should pay taxes on food, water, or air, as they are human necessities.

But restaurants, fast food joints, those should be included in the sales tax.






It sounds like the Fair Tax proposed a few years back by Neal Boortz and John Linder. Are you familiar with that proposal?

Chris
01-15-2019, 05:26 PM
What this would mean is no more free ride for the corporations, and big business. Most dont realize it but we the people are paying the bills of the most wealthy in this nation. We are taxed at least 60% of our earnings. We are taxed on our income, then we are taxed on everything we buy, and then we are taxed on our utilities, and property. The list goes on. The money is redistributed and put into the pockets of the wealthy. It is becasue they are not paying their fair share. By doing this flat tax we truly could end corruption. We could pay off our debt. we could end the IRS. The little guy wouldn't be paying for the big guy anymore, and our nation would flourish and prosper like never before. This would not end government, it would just end the corporations corrupt use of the government to their advantage. Everyone would truly pay their fair share.

There would be no more redistribution of money, taking from the poor, to give to the wealthy. We would no longer be paying their way. With this idea, each person would pay their own way, and it would be equal and fair. The math needs worked up, it needs studied and delved deeply into.


No, how you tax has little to nothing to do with how you spend.

Chris
01-15-2019, 05:28 PM
You're describing a consumption tax, not a flat tax.

Yes, exactly.

Peter1469
01-15-2019, 05:34 PM
The Fair Tax (https://fairtax.org/).

Yes.

Tahuyaman
01-15-2019, 05:38 PM
The Fair Tax is the best option.

The last time I saw a Democrat propose a flat tax, his plan had more tax brackets than our current system. It was a scam.

Lummy
01-15-2019, 05:40 PM
No, how you tax has little to nothing to do with how you spend.
I'm wondering how OP tax would impact spending.

Just AnotherPerson
01-15-2019, 05:45 PM
I'm wondering how OP tax would impact spending.

Well when you are only paying 12% instead of 60% then you would have a lot more money in your pocket, and people would spend more. Life for everyone would be more prosperous, at least that is what I think.

Captain Obvious
01-15-2019, 05:47 PM
RW dog whistle and talking point.

Mental masturbation if you believe it would be applied fairly.

Lummy
01-15-2019, 06:06 PM
Let's see ... how would they/we control gas and fuel consumption? Tobacco? Alcohol? There would have to be some mechanism to to prevent control freak Democrats totally customizing it for their pet causes.

Lummy
01-15-2019, 06:07 PM
Make it a constitutional amendment?

Lummy
01-15-2019, 06:08 PM
Well when you are only paying 12% instead of 60% then you would have a lot more money in your pocket, and people would spend more. Life for everyone would be more prosperous, at least that is what I think.


Mmm ... sounds like magic.

Captdon
01-15-2019, 06:09 PM
I orginally posted this to another forum member. But I really would like feedback on it. There may be flaws I don't see right now. Weigh in.


Our current federal budget is 4.11 Trillion dollars. If we include State and local budgets, that number becomes 6.41 Trillion. So, it costs us 6 1/2 Trillion per year to run our country right now. If we got rid of all taxes, which would also scrap the IRS and all county auditors by default, and including the scrapping of all state and local taxes, we could come up with that amount from 1 single tax- a universal flat sales tax.

There were 56 Trillion dollars in purchases in 2017 in the US, only 612 Billion of which was at grocery stores. Of those Grocery chain sales, only about 120 billion was on actual food.
If we tax everything except food, we still end up with 55.9 Trillion in taxable sales. If we set our sales tax at 12%, that would be 6.7 Trillion in tax revenues. Distributed correctly, that would cover the entire cost of government as we know it today at 6.41 Trillion.

Bear in mind this would eliminate ALL other forms of taxation. This would also make it so everyone pays their own share equally, and with no IRS, there are no write-offs, refunds, or loopholes. When poor people buy something for a dollar, 12 cents goes to taxes. When a wealthy person buys a $200,000 car, $24,000 goes to taxes. Both the rich and the poor would pay their own way, equal to their economic capacity. And to keep things fair, I have subtracted the 120 billion in actual groceries. I don't think we should pay taxes on food, water, or air, as they are human necessities.

But restaurants, fast food joints, those should be included in the sales tax.





Only if they amend the Constitution to eliminate the income tax.This law doesn't cut it. We'd end up with both.

Lummy
01-15-2019, 06:12 PM
Yep.

Captdon
01-15-2019, 06:12 PM
What this would mean is no more free ride for the corporations, and big business. Most dont realize it but we the people are paying the bills of the most wealthy in this nation. We are taxed at least 60% of our earnings. We are taxed on our income, then we are taxed on everything we buy, and then we are taxed on our utilities, and property. The list goes on. The money is redistributed and put into the pockets of the wealthy. It is becasue they are not paying their fair share. By doing this flat tax we truly could end corruption. We could pay off our debt. we could end the IRS. The little guy wouldn't be paying for the big guy anymore, and our nation would flourish and prosper like never before. This would not end government, it would just end the corporations corrupt use of the government to their advantage. Everyone would truly pay their fair share.

There would be no more redistribution of money, taking from the poor, to give to the wealthy. We would no longer be paying their way. With this idea, each person would pay their own way, and it would be equal and fair. The math needs worked up, it needs studied and delved deeply into.

The poor would still be getting a free ride.

Chris
01-15-2019, 06:15 PM
I'm wondering how OP tax would impact spending.

Well, it might actually do some good. People would be taxed on what they choose to spend. It might make people think twice. It might undermine the driving consumerism of economic liberalism and liberal democracy. We might turn to other parts of life more valuable.

And that would reduce tax revenues and that ought to reduce spending...no, the politicians and bureaucrats will just keep printing more money to spend.

Lummy
01-15-2019, 06:22 PM
Well, it might actually do some good. People would be taxed on what they choose to spend. It might make people think twice. It might undermine the driving consumerism of economic liberalism and liberal democracy. We might turn to other parts of life more valuable.

And that would reduce tax revenues and that ought to reduce spending...no, the politicians and bureaucrats will just keep printing more money to spend.

Yes, it could encourage saving and conserving. I've always liked that about it.

Chris
01-15-2019, 06:25 PM
Yes, it could encourage saving and conserving. I've always liked that about it.

In the Flat Tax you could also opt to buy used/second hand and not pay taxes.

You would ge to choose how you spent rather than having the government decide.

RadioGod
01-16-2019, 02:58 AM
You're describing a consumption tax, not a flat tax.

Yes. Or, a flat tax on consumption:)

RadioGod
01-16-2019, 03:17 AM
I'm wondering how OP tax would impact spending.

All I was trying to do was replace our current tax code with something more fair. Everyone would pay the same exact tax. No brackets, no loopholes, no bs. Our current government, federal, state, and local, requires 6.4 Trillion right now. At 12%, that would be covered, plus a little extra to pay down the national debt or something.
We all happen to pay more than that by far as we speak. It's just that the few thousand businesses that make most of the money here don't pay in at all. This would stomp on that inequality. We would all pay equal.
I do agree that spending is also an issue. A budget is both income and expenditures. This is about a fair way to fund the budget. I bet if we looked at the spending side, and eliminated all the government subsidies to all business, we could knock that percentage down to 6 or 7% easily.
Let's face it, any form of taxation is basically socialism. But in order to live in a society and work together towards the common goal of a better living now and for our kids in the future, we need some rules and taxes. There are thousands of things being funded by our taxes now that can be gotten rid of, for sure. We could all probably rattle off many things to tear out of the budget. But that would only bring our sustainable tax percentage down.
The one flaw I see, is a government run amok, could raise the tax to a stupid level. That would be terrible.

RadioGod
01-16-2019, 03:55 AM
Well, it might actually do some good. People would be taxed on what they choose to spend. It might make people think twice. It might undermine the driving consumerism of economic liberalism and liberal democracy. We might turn to other parts of life more valuable.

And that would reduce tax revenues and that ought to reduce spending...no, the politicians and bureaucrats will just keep printing more money to spend.

The creation and subsequent printing of money is due to fractional reserve lending. If I am allowed to lend more cash than I have, money is created out of the lending process itself. This leads to inflation. Even so, all of the cash in the world generates no tax revenue until it changes hands in a recorded format, like a sales tax.
It is not the politicians who decide to print money anymore. It is the FED. They set interest rates and tell the Treasury department how much cash to print. The FED also takes into account money not printed, which is actually the bulk of our money supply. It's electronic. It only exists as account balances in bank servers.
What politician has anything to gain by printing money? Only those who have become the arcane banking priests benefit from controlling our money supply. If any politician does anything to help those people out, it is never in the interest of printing more money. Rather, it is in the interest of return favors and sponsorship by those that control our economy and financing.

RadioGod
01-16-2019, 04:13 AM
The poor would still be getting a free ride.
How so? If a poor person throws a couple coins in the basket, and a rich person throws in a hundred, who has given more? This question was postulated to Jesus himself. He said the poor person gave more, because it was all she had.
Nobody gets a free ride in this system. We would all pay our fair share according to our spending. Rich people can still buy cheap things. Also, since property taxes would be scrapped outright, you could own a 30 bedroom mansion and pay zero taxes on it. Likewise for a plywood shack.
I think at first glance it's easy to overlook at what a tax like this would undo, rather than impose. There would no doubt still be poor people. Which is why I chose to crunch the numbers to match today's budget, with all of it's socialism and none of the fat trimmed away. Spending and social program funding would be the second budget issue, no doubt hotly debated by all sides. And as I said earlier in this thread, any cuts would reduce the flat sales tax required to balance the budget. That can be a good thing.

RadioGod
01-16-2019, 04:26 AM
In the Flat Tax you could also opt to buy used/second hand and not pay taxes.

You would ge to choose how you spent rather than having the government decide.

Yep. That would be the primary flat tax loophole. Good point, Chris. But rather than try to close that loophole, it might be better to let it ride. It would encourage people to barter and buy from each other, and actual value could be placed on things by real consumers. If someone can find a good tool for $100 bucks on craigslist, and resell it when they don't need it anymore, it would be hard for a company to offer the same tool for $500. Price gouging and profiteering kept in check. $200 to $250 new would have to be good enough.
Another loophole I did consider yesterday was large orders from outside the country, then shipped here. I think it that case, a standard 12% tariff on inbound-only goods would work. No tariff's outbound. Large businesses could still order cheaper things from overseas, but they would still pay a 12% tax on them. Exports would go out unmolested and untaxed.

RadioGod
01-16-2019, 04:37 AM
Let's see ... how would they/we control gas and fuel consumption? Tobacco? Alcohol? There would have to be some mechanism to to prevent control freak Democrats totally customizing it for their pet causes.
I don't think we need to control any consumption. Just tax the purchases consumers make. Without an IRS, tax brackets, or types of goods being categorized and given special tax rates, there would be no way to impose different taxes on different items. Nor should there be. Smokers, drinkers, and truck drivers should not be singled out for higher consumption taxes. It's not fair, and it inhibits actual consumption. A fair tax where every product or service is treated equally makes better sense, and it promotes a free market without regulatory interference.
I do believe the government should regulate what companies put out into our environment when it's toxic, but that is another issue altogether, and has no involvement with tax revenue under a flat sales tax.

RadioGod
01-16-2019, 05:04 AM
RW dog whistle and talking point.

Mental masturbation if you believe it would be applied fairly.

How could it be applied unfairly? If it's just 12% on whatever you buy, it's the same for everyone regardless of purchase. Some States today pay 8% to 12% sales tax, plus property taxes. Some States have no sales tax, but their property taxes are off the hook crazy. Some States rely more on an income tax separate from federal taxes.
All of these tax plans involve some type of bracketing or tiering with lots of items in their own special tax tiers. All of this type of special categorization, especially when it comes to tax exemption, makes the whole system we have today a bunch of garbage that is not fair at all.
And mental masturbation? LOL. True, it's just mental gymnastics here. A big hypothetic "what-if". But it does help us understand the injustices, abuses, and selectivity of our current tax revenue systems today. All of it designed specifically to run counter to the narrative of a capitalistic free-market economy. Also, at your age, isn't mental masturbation a given?:)

RadioGod
01-16-2019, 06:03 AM
The Fair Tax (https://fairtax.org/).

Yes.
I looked up the "fair tax". Thanks for the reference. Here is the wiki on it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax

I do see problems with the tax as laid out in the proposed Fair Tax Act. First, it only replaces the Federal Taxes. A Federal sales tax heaped upon State and Local taxes just means way more taxes for everyone.
Secondly, it keeps the refund and rebate mentality in play, which allows write-offs and cuts to selected people or companies, or even specific industries. This amounts to picking winners and losers in our markets, and it still takes money from some and distributes it to others in a disproportionate way. Poor people with no means to get refunds would end up as the sole source of revenue, while the ultra wealthy, with all their tax breaks and refunds, would get a "free ride". Even if the wealthy were taxed and it was handed down to untaxed poor, that is inequality and a "free ride" also.
These tax revenue plans are nothing more than schemes. They are designed to be manipulative from the beginning. They end up serving inequality and creating unnecessary rifts in our people where none need exist. If everyone pays in equally, instead of arguing about this economic group or that one, we could come together as one group of all citizens and debate the actual tax percentage all of us would pay. That would lead to involvement, and unity. Where we would differ, of course, is where revenues should be split to fund State and Local governments.
It's really funny to me that under the Fair Tax Act, we would pay such high sales taxes, along with all of the other taxes we already pay. It would make us all worse economic slaves than we already are. I originally chose 12% because it covered everything in all of our budget, Federal, State, and Local. Ideally, under 10% would be even better. I think it could well drop under 6% if we got rid of government subsidies, and just let our free market ride and level itself out. Compared to everything we pay today, it would feel as if a giant burden was lifted from each of us.
One note I should make for comment purposes, is fees. Fees are issued at all levels of government. They are nothing more than another form of taxation.
I am required by law to carry a driver's license. I pay a fee for it. That is bs. My vehicle need tabs every year, and I pay extra fees for that, too. If it is something that is required for the regulation and safety of society, then that is for all of us. Therefore, it should be paid for by the taxes of all of us. Technically, it already is, but in the form of individual fees. Only the really poor cannot pay these type of fees, so getting rid of all fees is a sure way to level the playing field for rich and poor alike.
If a rich and poor person alike pays nothing for a driver's license, tabs, fishing license, road tolls, etc., then there is no inequality. A poor person can enjoy a camping trip with no fees just like the rich, and can go fishing just like the rich. I can understand the reasons licenses should be issued for regulation, but we shouldn't keep being charged above our taxes for ever-increasing regulation, just to generate government revenues.
Fees are taxes by another name, and they should not be separated in a truly fair tax system. They should be eliminated or put in the tax column.
Another thing that could possibly suffer under a truly fair sales tax, is Local projects which usually get voted on in Bond measure within a community. Some hospitals or public parks and pools are created with a public bond, which is another form of taxation.
When it comes to this type of community project, I would be of a mind that if a public works project was wanted, people could pay for it themselves, within the community. No extra taxation or bond measure would be needed. A simple public campaign to raise the money necessary is more than sufficient. And if enough money is not raised, apparently it wasn't really wanted in the community. Also, these types of public-funded projects should never be handed over to a private company or business interest. They should be solely owned and maintained by the community, forever.

Peter1469
01-16-2019, 08:41 AM
I looked up the "fair tax". Thanks for the reference. Here is the wiki on it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax

I do see problems with the tax as laid out in the proposed Fair Tax Act. First, it only replaces the Federal Taxes. A Federal sales tax heaped upon State and Local taxes just means way more taxes for everyone.
Secondly, it keeps the refund and rebate mentality in play, which allows write-offs and cuts to selected people or companies, or even specific industries. This amounts to picking winners and losers in our markets, and it still takes money from some and distributes it to others in a disproportionate way. Poor people with no means to get refunds would end up as the sole source of revenue, while the ultra wealthy, with all their tax breaks and refunds, would get a "free ride". Even if the wealthy were taxed and it was handed down to untaxed poor, that is inequality and a "free ride" also.
These tax revenue plans are nothing more than schemes. They are designed to be manipulative from the beginning. They end up serving inequality and creating unnecessary rifts in our people where none need exist. If everyone pays in equally, instead of arguing about this economic group or that one, we could come together as one group of all citizens and debate the actual tax percentage all of us would pay. That would lead to involvement, and unity. Where we would differ, of course, is where revenues should be split to fund State and Local governments.
It's really funny to me that under the Fair Tax Act, we would pay such high sales taxes, along with all of the other taxes we already pay. It would make us all worse economic slaves than we already are. I originally chose 12% because it covered everything in all of our budget, Federal, State, and Local. Ideally, under 10% would be even better. I think it could well drop under 6% if we got rid of government subsidies, and just let our free market ride and level itself out. Compared to everything we pay today, it would feel as if a giant burden was lifted from each of us.
One note I should make for comment purposes, is fees. Fees are issued at all levels of government. They are nothing more than another form of taxation.
I am required by law to carry a driver's license. I pay a fee for it. That is bs. My vehicle need tabs every year, and I pay extra fees for that, too. If it is something that is required for the regulation and safety of society, then that is for all of us. Therefore, it should be paid for by the taxes of all of us. Technically, it already is, but in the form of individual fees. Only the really poor cannot pay these type of fees, so getting rid of all fees is a sure way to level the playing field for rich and poor alike.
If a rich and poor person alike pays nothing for a driver's license, tabs, fishing license, road tolls, etc., then there is no inequality. A poor person can enjoy a camping trip with no fees just like the rich, and can go fishing just like the rich. I can understand the reasons licenses should be issued for regulation, but we shouldn't keep being charged above our taxes for ever-increasing regulation, just to generate government revenues.
Fees are taxes by another name, and they should not be separated in a truly fair tax system. They should be eliminated or put in the tax column.
Another thing that could possibly suffer under a truly fair sales tax, is Local projects which usually get voted on in Bond measure within a community. Some hospitals or public parks and pools are created with a public bond, which is another form of taxation.
When it comes to this type of community project, I would be of a mind that if a public works project was wanted, people could pay for it themselves, within the community. No extra taxation or bond measure would be needed. A simple public campaign to raise the money necessary is more than sufficient. And if enough money is not raised, apparently it wasn't really wanted in the community. Also, these types of public-funded projects should never be handed over to a private company or business interest. They should be solely owned and maintained by the community, forever.
The Fair tax would replace all federal taxes.

The states will do what they do. Federalism.

Chris
01-16-2019, 08:52 AM
The creation and subsequent printing of money is due to fractional reserve lending. If I am allowed to lend more cash than I have, money is created out of the lending process itself. This leads to inflation. Even so, all of the cash in the world generates no tax revenue until it changes hands in a recorded format, like a sales tax.
It is not the politicians who decide to print money anymore. It is the FED. They set interest rates and tell the Treasury department how much cash to print. The FED also takes into account money not printed, which is actually the bulk of our money supply. It's electronic. It only exists as account balances in bank servers.
What politician has anything to gain by printing money? Only those who have become the arcane banking priests benefit from controlling our money supply. If any politician does anything to help those people out, it is never in the interest of printing more money. Rather, it is in the interest of return favors and sponsorship by those that control our economy and financing.


The FED is a government-created entity. It should be disbanded.

What do politicians have to gain? Power will in offices, rishes after.

Chris
01-16-2019, 08:55 AM
Yep. That would be the primary flat tax loophole. Good point, Chris. But rather than try to close that loophole, it might be better to let it ride. It would encourage people to barter and buy from each other, and actual value could be placed on things by real consumers. If someone can find a good tool for $100 bucks on craigslist, and resell it when they don't need it anymore, it would be hard for a company to offer the same tool for $500. Price gouging and profiteering kept in check. $200 to $250 new would have to be good enough.
Another loophole I did consider yesterday was large orders from outside the country, then shipped here. I think it that case, a standard 12% tariff on inbound-only goods would work. No tariff's outbound. Large businesses could still order cheaper things from overseas, but they would still pay a 12% tax on them. Exports would go out unmolested and untaxed.


I didn't present not taxing used/secondhand as a loophole but a positive aspect of letting people decide how much taxes they pay.


Tariffs are paid by the people of the country that imports, not the exporter.

Peter1469
01-16-2019, 09:26 AM
I didn't present not taxing used/secondhand as a loophole but a positive aspect of letting people decide how much taxes they pay.


Tariffs are paid by the people of the country that imports, not the exporter.
But tariffs can change the behavior of the exporter. That is the only valid use of tariffs.

Chris
01-16-2019, 09:28 AM
But tariffs can change the behavior of the exporter. That is the only valid use of tariffs.

They can but the change is a toss-up between compliance toward free trade and retaliation in trade war. It's a political gamble.

Peter1469
01-16-2019, 09:33 AM
They can but the change is a toss-up between compliance toward free trade and retaliation in trade war. It's a political gamble.

Yes it is.

Chris
01-16-2019, 10:10 AM
Yes it is.


My guess is Trump will win that gamble. The US is too big and wealthy to mess with.

Chris
01-16-2019, 10:12 AM
IIRC, with the Fair Tax, a consumption tax is only paid on the first input to production. Sort of the same with only new consumables being taxed.

mamooth
01-16-2019, 10:55 AM
I orginally posted this to another forum member. But I really would like feedback on it. There may be flaws I don't see right now. Weigh in.
It's magical thinking, as it says everyone can pay less while still getting the same revenue.



There were 56 Trillion dollars in purchases in 2017 in the US,

Consumer spending, the end of the retail chain, was more like 10 trillion. And that's what sales tax is currently applied to. Your method would require taxing the whole production chain, so it's much more intrusive in terms of taxation. Assuming you only tax the end of the chain, the tax rate would have to be much higher, over 30%. And that's impossible to implement. Once any single tax approaches 10%, people start looking very hard for ways to avoid paying that tax. That's why we have lots of little taxes instead of one big tax -- it's not worth the bother to avoid each little tax.

At 30+%, the whole nation would become experts at tax avoidance. A very large fraction of business would move underground. To actually force people to pay that tax would require an army of tax enforcers that makes the current IRS look warm and cuddly.

Plus, the flat tax is regressive as hell. It forces the poor to subsidize the rich even more heavily. There's no free lunch. It's not possible for everyone to pay less and still get the same revenue. The reality of your system is that the rich pay much less, the poor pay much more, and the middle class pays somewhat more. That's why it's a political non-starter.

Now, some proposals make it less regressive by giving an income floor where taxes don't apply, or giving everyone a refund every year (which sounds suspiciously like a very socialist basic income.). But you're still left with the problem that _somebody_ has to pay to get the revenue. Since the rich are paying much less, and the poor aren't paying, now the middle class gets reamed even harder, because the base rate had to be jacked up even higher. Which leads to even more tax evasion, so the rate has to be jacked up to account for that, leading to more tax evasion, and so on.

MisterVeritis
01-16-2019, 12:58 PM
There were 56 Trillion dollars in purchases in 2017 in the US,

Help me understand how that is possible in an economy that generates about 20 trillion dollars of value in a given year? Isn't the actual value closer to 4 trillion dollars?

RadioGod
01-16-2019, 01:03 PM
I didn't present not taxing used/secondhand as a loophole but a positive aspect of letting people decide how much taxes they pay.


Tariffs are paid by the people of the country that imports, not the exporter.

Uh, that's what it would be if I ordered cheaper stuff from overseas. An import. If I send it out of the US, an export.

Chris
01-16-2019, 01:05 PM
It's magical thinking, as it says everyone can pay less while still getting the same revenue.




Consumer spending, the end of the retail chain, was more like 10 trillion. And that's what sales tax is currently applied to. Your method would require taxing the whole production chain, so it's much more intrusive in terms of taxation. Assuming you only tax the end of the chain, the tax rate would have to be much higher, over 30%. And that's impossible to implement. Once any single tax approaches 10%, people start looking very hard for ways to avoid paying that tax. That's why we have lots of little taxes instead of one big tax -- it's not worth the bother to avoid each little tax.

At 30+%, the whole nation would become experts at tax avoidance. A very large fraction of business would move underground. To actually force people to pay that tax would require an army of tax enforcers that makes the current IRS look warm and cuddly.

Plus, the flat tax is regressive as hell. It forces the poor to subsidize the rich even more heavily. There's no free lunch. It's not possible for everyone to pay less and still get the same revenue. The reality of your system is that the rich pay much less, the poor pay much more, and the middle class pays somewhat more. That's why it's a political non-starter.

Now, some proposals make it less regressive by giving an income floor where taxes don't apply, or giving everyone a refund every year (which sounds suspiciously like a very socialist basic income.). But you're still left with the problem that _somebody_ has to pay to get the revenue. Since the rich are paying much less, and the poor aren't paying, now the middle class gets reamed even harder, because the base rate had to be jacked up even higher. Which leads to even more tax evasion, so the rate has to be jacked up to account for that, leading to more tax evasion, and so on.



Many of here would love to starve the beast!

Chris
01-16-2019, 01:06 PM
Uh, that's what it would be if I ordered cheaper stuff from overseas. An import. If I send it out of the US, an export.

Right, so you the importer pays the tariff. It's just another tax.

RadioGod
01-16-2019, 01:11 PM
Right, so you the importer pays the tariff. It's just another tax.
Yes. To prevent US companies from importing everything tax-free from out of country, and again putting the tax shortfalls on the regular people.

RadioGod
01-16-2019, 01:14 PM
Help me understand how that is possible in an economy that generates about 20 trillion dollars of value in a given year? Isn't the actual value closer to 4 trillion dollars?

If so, then no amount of taxation can help us and we are done as a country. I looked at over 50 sites getting the numbers, I can't find that link in my history from a week ago.

RadioGod
01-16-2019, 01:26 PM
It's magical thinking, as it says everyone can pay less while still getting the same revenue.




Consumer spending, the end of the retail chain, was more like 10 trillion. And that's what sales tax is currently applied to. Your method would require taxing the whole production chain, so it's much more intrusive in terms of taxation. Assuming you only tax the end of the chain, the tax rate would have to be much higher, over 30%. And that's impossible to implement. Once any single tax approaches 10%, people start looking very hard for ways to avoid paying that tax. That's why we have lots of little taxes instead of one big tax -- it's not worth the bother to avoid each little tax.

At 30+%, the whole nation would become experts at tax avoidance. A very large fraction of business would move underground. To actually force people to pay that tax would require an army of tax enforcers that makes the current IRS look warm and cuddly.

Plus, the flat tax is regressive as hell. It forces the poor to subsidize the rich even more heavily. There's no free lunch. It's not possible for everyone to pay less and still get the same revenue. The reality of your system is that the rich pay much less, the poor pay much more, and the middle class pays somewhat more. That's why it's a political non-starter.

Now, some proposals make it less regressive by giving an income floor where taxes don't apply, or giving everyone a refund every year (which sounds suspiciously like a very socialist basic income.). But you're still left with the problem that _somebody_ has to pay to get the revenue. Since the rich are paying much less, and the poor aren't paying, now the middle class gets reamed even harder, because the base rate had to be jacked up even higher. Which leads to even more tax evasion, so the rate has to be jacked up to account for that, leading to more tax evasion, and so on.



We very well might be heading for a socialist-style basic income. As AI and automation continue to increase, what will we do when 99% of our population has no job? That topic staggers the brain. We can't have an economy without business. And we can't have business without customers. And we can't have customers without people earning money at jobs. And we can't pay people to work for $15 an hour when robots do the same job for $15 a week in electricity. Without unions, limited work hours, medical benefits, and fatigue. It would probably cost more to feed, clothe, and house slaves that worked for free than operational and maintenance costs with robot workers.
As for a flat sales tax, it is not the same as the plan in the Fair Tax Act. Entirely different. The poor would pay no more than they do now at stores. The rich would too, but without writing it off on their returns at the end of every year.

RadioGod
01-16-2019, 01:34 PM
The FED is a government-created entity. It should be disbanded.

What do politicians have to gain? Power will in offices, rishes after.

The only government employee on the board of the FED is the Treasury secretary. The rest are private bank CEO's. And the FED itself is owned by it's investors, like any corporation. Who they are is an undisclosed secret. It's some of that Rothschild, Warburg, Morgan conspiracy mumbo-jumbo. Or should I say, conspira-fact?

RadioGod
01-16-2019, 01:39 PM
Help me understand how that is possible in an economy that generates about 20 trillion dollars of value in a given year? Isn't the actual value closer to 4 trillion dollars?

I am really hoping I didn't mess up monthly and yearly figures.

MisterVeritis
01-16-2019, 01:43 PM
If so, then no amount of taxation can help us and we are done as a country. I looked at over 50 sites getting the numbers, I can't find that link in my history from a week ago.
I believe you were led astray.

MisterVeritis
01-16-2019, 01:47 PM
I am really hoping I didn't mess up monthly and yearly figures.
I believe your approach is the right one. End all other taxes. Have just one tax on consumption.

We need an amendment that says no more than 15% of our income can be seized by all levels of government combined. Federal, state, and local governments can work out what percentage of the take goes to each. End all business licensing laws as they are just another tax.

Give the Constitution teeth so the Executive Branch and the Judiciary are removed entirely from lawmaking.

Chris
01-16-2019, 02:17 PM
We very well might be heading for a socialist-style basic income. As AI and automation continue to increase, what will we do when 99% of our population has no job? That topic staggers the brain. We can't have an economy without business. And we can't have business without customers. And we can't have customers without people earning money at jobs. And we can't pay people to work for $15 an hour when robots do the same job for $15 a week in electricity. Without unions, limited work hours, medical benefits, and fatigue. It would probably cost more to feed, clothe, and house slaves that worked for free than operational and maintenance costs with robot workers.
As for a flat sales tax, it is not the same as the plan in the Fair Tax Act. Entirely different. The poor would pay no more than they do now at stores. The rich would too, but without writing it off on their returns at the end of every year.


Automation increases productvity increasing demand for more workers.


Flat or Fair, people would pay taxes only on what they choose to purchase new. Likely the richer you are the less yu would pay and the more of your own moeny you'd have to spend as you saw fit.

Chris
01-16-2019, 02:19 PM
The only government employee on the board of the FED is the Treasury secretary. The rest are private bank CEO's. And the FED itself is owned by it's investors, like any corporation. Who they are is an undisclosed secret. It's some of that Rothschild, Warburg, Morgan conspiracy mumbo-jumbo. Or should I say, conspira-fact?

I said it was a government-created institution.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOv1K8ikz5E

RadioGod
01-16-2019, 02:28 PM
I said it was a government-created institution.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOv1K8ikz5E

And unconstitutional. The Constitution says Congress has the authority to coin money. Not to delegate that authority to a private 3rd party. I've seen this Ron Paul video before. He is right. But there is always more to the story. It was an act of congress that created the first 2 national banks, as well as this one. The president should have vetoed and/or the courts should have stepped in and shut it down. Again, you lay all this on the government. I lay it on the government being corrupted by powerful and wealthy shot-callers.
The way you insist it's all the government's fault is becoming tiresome. It's like you are going after drug addicts, but drug dealers are perfectly ok. Wise up.

RadioGod
01-16-2019, 02:34 PM
Automation increases productvity increasing demand for more workers.


Flat or Fair, people would pay taxes only on what they choose to purchase new. Likely the richer you are the less yu would pay and the more of your own moeny you'd have to spend as you saw fit.

Chris, you are so special I can't even begin to comprehend your thought process. More robots in the workforce will cause more worker demand? Please. Once again, your dyslexia betrays you.

Chris
01-16-2019, 02:36 PM
And unconstitutional. The Constitution says Congress has the authority to coin money. Not to delegate that authority to a private 3rd party. I've seen this Ron Paul video before. He is right. But there is always more to the story. It was an act of congress that created the first 2 national banks, as well as this one. The president should have vetoed and/or the courts should have stepped in and shut it down. Again, you lay all this on the government. I lay it on the government being corrupted by powerful and wealthy shot-callers.
The way you insist it's all the government's fault is becoming tiresome. It's like you are going after drug addicts, but drug dealers are perfectly ok. Wise up.


The government is the drug dealer, both figuratively and literally. People and corporations feed of its favors. It's a function of power: The more you increase the power of the government, the more corrruption, and vice versa.

Chris
01-16-2019, 02:38 PM
Chris, you are so special I can't even begin to comprehend your thought process. More robots in the workforce will cause more worker demand? Please. Once again, your dyslexia betrays you.

Yes. More robots INCREASES productivity, including new things, like sneakers that lace themselves. In order to produce more new things, you need more workers, from factory to transport to sales.

Insults are white flags.

Chris
01-16-2019, 02:42 PM
Did the invention of the wheel destroy or create more jobs?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSPHMMziFuU

MisterVeritis
01-16-2019, 02:44 PM
If so, then no amount of taxation can help us and we are done as a country. I looked at over 50 sites getting the numbers, I can't find that link in my history from a week ago.
We can stop spending on unconstitutional programs.

RadioGod
01-16-2019, 02:57 PM
Yes. More robots INCREASES productivity, including new things, like sneakers that lace themselves. In order to produce more new things, you need more workers, from factory to transport to sales.

Insults are white flags.

I don't think you quite understand, Chris. With automated factories, robots powered by programming and AI do all of the work. Only a couple people are needed to take care of the machines. That means wayyyyyyyy less jobs. Unless you are a robot. Maybe you can dress up in a painted cardboard box and snag yourself a job. But you won't get paid. With your reasoning skills, I don't think you would let that stop you from trying.

RadioGod
01-16-2019, 03:00 PM
Did the invention of the wheel destroy or create more jobs?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSPHMMziFuU

The wheel is a tool that humans use to work more efficiently, Chris. It's like a lever, or any other tool. But automation in a factory driven by AI is where robots use the wheel INSTEAD of us. I hope you are taking a good multi-vitamin or something.

MisterVeritis
01-16-2019, 03:06 PM
I don't think you quite understand, Chris. With automated factories, robots powered by programming and AI do all of the work. Only a couple people are needed to take care of the machines. That means wayyyyyyyy less jobs. Unless you are a robot. Maybe you can dress up in a painted cardboard box and snag yourself a job. But you won't get paid. With your reasoning skills, I don't think you would let that stop you from trying.
People have been complaining about automation taking jobs for as far back as we have records. Sabotage came from the workers' practice of throwing their wooden shoes (sabots) into the machinery (this is not actually true but don't let that stand in the way of the lesson).

nathanbforrest45
01-16-2019, 03:09 PM
Yes, I can see where innovation down through the ages has eliminated the workload of humans and reduced the need for more workers. As the cost of manufacturing is reduced I can foresee no scenario where more goods would be sold requiring more but differently trained workers. Skill sets would change but that would in no way in turn become a need for more workers.

One plus to your vision of the world is that if people were not working then there would be no money to buy the goods and services offered by the robots. This would in turn reduce the amount of goods being produced and would save the environment.

Chris
01-16-2019, 03:16 PM
The wheel is a tool that humans use to work more efficiently, Chris. It's like a lever, or any other tool. But automation in a factory driven by AI is where robots use the wheel INSTEAD of us. I hope you are taking a good multi-vitamin or something.

Exactly, it was automation and it created new jobs. All automation is tools that humans use. Even robots in a factory.

Keep waving that white flag if you think your little insults mean anything.

Chris
01-16-2019, 03:21 PM
Yes, I can see where innovation down through the ages has eliminated the workload of humans and reduced the need for more workers. As the cost of manufacturing is reduced I can foresee no scenario where more goods would be sold requiring more but differently trained workers. Skill sets would change but that would in no way in turn become a need for more workers.

One plus to your vision of the world is that if people were not working then there would be no money to buy the goods and services offered by the robots. This would in turn reduce the amount of goods being produced and would save the environment.

Because automation makes work more efficient it increases productivity and that actually creates new jobs. The job feeding the furnace was replaced by the job at an accounting computer.



One plus to your vision of the world is that if people were not working then there would be no money to buy the goods and services offered by the robots.

Assume Radio's vision is true. More automation reduces jobs more and more until as you say no one is working and making a living to consume goods and services. There would be no demand. Might as well turn off the robots and everyone can just roll over and die--Reductio ad absurdum.

donttread
01-19-2019, 10:52 AM
I orginally posted this to another forum member. But I really would like feedback on it. There may be flaws I don't see right now. Weigh in.


Our current federal budget is 4.11 Trillion dollars. If we include State and local budgets, that number becomes 6.41 Trillion. So, it costs us 6 1/2 Trillion per year to run our country right now. If we got rid of all taxes, which would also scrap the IRS and all county auditors by default, and including the scrapping of all state and local taxes, we could come up with that amount from 1 single tax- a universal flat sales tax.

There were 56 Trillion dollars in purchases in 2017 in the US, only 612 Billion of which was at grocery stores. Of those Grocery chain sales, only about 120 billion was on actual food.
If we tax everything except food, we still end up with 55.9 Trillion in taxable sales. If we set our sales tax at 12%, that would be 6.7 Trillion in tax revenues. Distributed correctly, that would cover the entire cost of government as we know it today at 6.41 Trillion.

Bear in mind this would eliminate ALL other forms of taxation. This would also make it so everyone pays their own share equally, and with no IRS, there are no write-offs, refunds, or loopholes. When poor people buy something for a dollar, 12 cents goes to taxes. When a wealthy person buys a $200,000 car, $24,000 goes to taxes. Both the rich and the poor would pay their own way, equal to their economic capacity. And to keep things fair, I have subtracted the 120 billion in actual groceries. I don't think we should pay taxes on food, water, or air, as they are human necessities.

But restaurants, fast food joints, those should be included in the sales tax.





I am in favor of some form of a consumption tax.

Orion Rules
01-21-2019, 11:22 PM
Posted by Chris:
The FED is a government-created entity. It should be disbanded.

What do politicians have to gain? Power will in offices, rishes after.



The only government employee on the board of the FED is the Treasury secretary. The rest are private bank CEO's. And the FED itself is owned by it's investors, like any corporation. Who they are is an undisclosed secret. It's some of that Rothschild, Warburg, Morgan conspiracy mumbo-jumbo. Or should I say, conspira-fact?

Orion Rules
01-21-2019, 11:24 PM
What this would mean is no more free ride for the corporations, and big business. Most dont realize it but we the people are paying the bills of the most wealthy in this nation. We are taxed at least 60% of our earnings. We are taxed on our income, then we are taxed on everything we buy, and then we are taxed on our utilities, and property. The list goes on. The money is redistributed and put into the pockets of the wealthy. It is becasue they are not paying their fair share. By doing this flat tax we truly could end corruption. We could pay off our debt. we could end the IRS. The little guy wouldn't be paying for the big guy anymore, and our nation would flourish and prosper like never before. This would not end government, it would just end the corporations corrupt use of the government to their advantage. Everyone would truly pay their fair share.

There would be no more redistribution of money, taking from the poor, to give to the wealthy. We would no longer be paying their way. With this idea, each person would pay their own way, and it would be equal and fair. The math needs worked up, it needs studied and delved deeply into.


Posted by RadioGod:
I orginally posted this to another forum member. But I really would like feedback on it. There may be flaws I don't see right now. Weigh in.

Our current federal budget is 4.11 Trillion dollars. If we include State and local budgets, that number becomes 6.41 Trillion. So, it costs us 6 1/2 Trillion per year to run our country right now. If we got rid of all taxes, which would also scrap the IRS and all county auditors by default, and including the scrapping of all state and local taxes, we could come up with that amount from 1 single tax- a universal flat sales tax.

There were 56 Trillion dollars in purchases in 2017 in the US, only 612 Billion of which was at grocery stores. Of those Grocery chain sales, only about 120 billion was on actual food.
If we tax everything except food, we still end up with 55.9 Trillion in taxable sales. If we set our sales tax at 12%, that would be 6.7 Trillion in tax revenues. Distributed correctly, that would cover the entire cost of government as we know it today at 6.41 Trillion.

Bear in mind this would eliminate ALL other forms of taxation. This would also make it so everyone pays their own share equally, and with no IRS, there are no write-offs, refunds, or loopholes. When poor people buy something for a dollar, 12 cents goes to taxes. When a wealthy person buys a $200,000 car, $24,000 goes to taxes. Both the rich and the poor would pay their own way, equal to their economic capacity. And to keep things fair, I have subtracted the 120 billion in actual groceries. I don't think we should pay taxes on food, water, or air, as they are human necessities.

But restaurants, fast food joints, those should be included in the sales tax.