The FairTax - gaining steam!

[retire@40]

The super rich now pays not much income tax or estate tax, due to their tax planning.

I'm sure you know this because you have seen the tax returns of the "super rich."

With a comment like that, I know you are not one of the "super rich."

 

[retire@40]

The reason the FairTax base is broader is that the FairTax has no loopholes and no exclusions, whereas the current tax system is full of loopholes, exceptions, and exclusions.

I thought there are exclusions for the "fairtax" such as the exclusion for used goods?

 

[greg]

I am sure DH will tell me what is wrong with me when I go home today.

YES

--DH

 

[charlie]

Let me give one more example of current tax system vs. the fair tax
and then I will shut up (maybe).

Remember that my wife are 71 and 64 respectively and mostly
retired.

Last year I paid $1450 in federal taxes and consumed about
$35,000 in new goods and services. Assuming a 15% reduction
in the basket of goods and a 30% sales tax, the new cost for
the same basket would cost me $38,675 but I would have the
income tax ($1450) plus the prebate ot $2868 to pay for it, for
a total of $4288 to cover a total cost increase of $3675.

Not too shabby, eh? But the best thing is that my kids don't have
to worry about SS and Medicare a going bankrupt and they will
benefit by the greatly enhanced position of the US economy in the
world market.

P.S. Not to mention that my total investment portfolio would see a
one time capital gain of about 5% (a wild ass guess to be sure)
which would return about $2205 (at 7% return .... another wag)
annually ..... just icing on the cake.

Cheers,

Charlie

 

[Mr._johngalt]

Let me give one more example of current tax system vs. the fair tax
and then I will shut up (maybe).   

Remember that my wife are 71 and 64 respectively and mostly
retired.

Last year I paid $1450 in federal taxes and consumed about
$35,000 in new goods and services.  Assuming a 15% reduction
in the basket of goods and a 30% sales tax, the new cost for
the same basket would cost me $38,675 but I would have the
income tax ($1450) plus the prebate ot $2868 to pay for it, for
a total of $4288 to cover a total cost increase of $3675.

Not too shabby, eh?  But the best thing is that my kids don't have
to worry about SS and Medicare a going bankrupt and they will
benefit by the greatly enhanced position of the US economy in the
world market.

P.S. Not to mention that my total investment portfolio would see a
one time capital gain of about 5% (a wild ass guess to be sure)
which would return about $2205 (at 7% return .... another wag)
annually  ..... just icing on the cake. 

Cheers,

Charlie

Not your best effort. Was this a CHP?

JG

 

[charlie]

I don't see you contributing anything to this discussion , JG, except
snide remarks. Tell me where I am wrong if you can.

Cheers,

Charlie

 

[Mr._johngalt]

I don't see you contributing anything to this discussion , JG, except
snide remarks.  Tell me where I am wrong if you can.

Cheers,

Charlie

Oh, I agree completely. "Snide" is my specialty. It's easy to understand.
Nothing personal, but I view the vast majority of humans as
a virus. The earth would be much improved with a massive reduction
in their numbers. Obviously, I am not talking about
anyone posting here.

JG

 

[amt]

Let me give one more example of current tax system vs. the fair tax
and then I will shut up (maybe).   

Remember that my wife are 71 and 64 respectively and mostly
retired.

Last year I paid $1450 in federal taxes and consumed about
$35,000 in new goods and services.  Assuming a 15% reduction
in the basket of goods and a 30% sales tax, the new cost for
the same basket would cost me $38,675 but I would have the
income tax ($1450) plus the prebate ot $2868 to pay for it, for
a total of $4288 to cover a total cost increase of $3675.

Not too shabby, eh?  But the best thing is that my kids don't have
to worry about SS and Medicare a going bankrupt and they will
benefit by the greatly enhanced position of the US economy in the
world market.

P.S. Not to mention that my total investment portfolio would see a
one time capital gain of about 5% (a wild ass guess to be sure)
which would return about $2205 (at 7% return .... another wag)
annually  ..... just icing on the cake. 

Cheers,

Charlie

Charlie,

You can tell I'm with you.  If you analyze the arguments of the opponents, they fall into the following categories:

1.  It's regressive.  (The fact is the current system taxes at 15.3% FICA taxes and 15 to 25% to middle classs (combined 30-40% roughly minus all the sacred exceptions/exemptions))

2.  It's not gonna be enough at 23%.  (with the broader base and no sacred exemptions, 23% should be enough, so say the respected economists from Harvard and MIT)

3.  I'm an ER; I paid my dues; why should I pay more?  (What about for the benefit of your children?)

4.  It's not gonna happen.  (We put men on the moon before)

5.  There will be cheaters.  (You think there are no cheaters now?)

6.  Anything else??

If they go through fairtax.org website, each of those arguments is countered really well and clearly, much better than my rudimentary comments above  .  

The opponents never answer the benefits the fairtax will bring:

1.  Reduction of the power and manipulation (bribery and corruption?) by the government inherent in the current convoluted system

2.  Incentives for work, productivity and savings rather than incentive for consumption

3.  Greater advantage for US workers and companies versus foreign ones.

Numerous more, more than I can list here; check out fairtax.org

 

[charlie]

I have to answer shiney, then maybe I can quit....

Shiney, if the fair tax passes it is obvious that nobody would invest
new money in a ROTH.  Why would they when all investments
would grow tax free until spent?

The question is what about existing ROTHs and taxable accounts.

The fair tax people estimate that the interest rates on taxable
bonds would go down about 25% .  Vanguard's Intermediate Term
bond index has a duration of 5.9 years and an average coupon
of 6.1%.  A drop of 25% on 6.1% results in a 1.53% drop in
interest rate or a one time capital gain of 5.9 x 1.53 = 9.07%
Dividend paying stocks would also see a one time gain .... let's
guess 5%.  Thus for a 50/50 port, the windfall gain would
be about 7%.  

Let's assume a ROTH of $100k before fair tax  which goes to $107K
afterward.  At a 7% annual return, the gain in income would be
$490.  If we assume the ROTH holder spends the income, he
would be spending $7.000 before fair  tax.  Assuming a 15% reduction
in price, the $7000 basket costs $5950 plus 30% fair tax for a
total of $7735 vs the $7000 before .  But remember, he has $490
in extra income plus the $2838 prebate already discussed.

Thus the ROTH or taxable account holder has $3328 to cover the
extra $735 he spends on the basket of goods.

Obviously the higher the value of the ROTH/taxable account the
less favorable the comparison.  For a $1 million account, the
extra income is $4900 per year.  Assuming only 4% is spent, the
annual spending before fair tax would be $40,000 and would
be $44,200 after a price reduction of 15% and a fair tax of 30%

The $4900 extra income plus the $2838 prebate still more than
covers the $4200 extra cost of goods.   Thus the fair tax
is still "fair" to the $1meg ROTH or taxable account holder.

The devil (or angel) is in the details.  You need to do the
numbers for your own situation before you throw this baby
out because of a knee-jerk emotional or politically biased
reaction.


Fire when ready!  

Cheers,

Charlie  

 

[gindie]

As the starter of this thread (and a hope-to-be ER in 9 years), I can see the questioning of the plan by retired folks.  However, for us still in the work force, I think it would be a good deal.

Just another little bit of information...The book is debuting #1 on the New York Times Non-Fiction Bestseller list to be published on August 21.

 

[amt]

Several  of the rebuttals talked about how the rebate will cover necessities of life and  "how much tax you pay is entirely based on how you chose to live your life." Different people have different necessities and  it is not necessarily equivalent  to poverty level income. The number I saw for the rebate based on necessities of life was $9310, based on the DHHS  "estimate of poverty level, a basket of medical care, food, clothing, shelter, transportation and entertainment, etc." for one person..


Come on, not even close.   So those with greater needs, not just wants, will pay more tax

Let's say that single person is a freelance handyman, making $20000 per year.  Per
http://www.dinkytown.net/java/Tax1040.html , his taxes will be $4109.  With the fairtax, his taxes will be $2459.  Even if you argue that he will be working at Wal Mart instead and his employer will pay 1/2 the FICA (although many economists will say the employee ultimately pay for it), his tax will be $2696.  Come on, you gotta compare apples to apples.  I can say I have a greater need of $1M per yr; but, what's fair?

I can see the cheating now.  I'll pay cash.  Buy goods from overseas.  Retailers selling "refurbished"  goods (no tax on used goods). . .

Oh, I have represented businesses in sales tax audits.  Just as bad if not worse than income tax audits.  (Prove your sales were not that high . . .)

What's IRS's audit rate?  It's about 0.77% ( http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Taxes/Avoidanaudit/P33948.asp ).  On this board, if I'm told that I'll have a 99.23% chance of not running out of my assets in my ER, I'll be thrilled.  If I am in Vegas playing black jack and my chances of winning is 99.23%, will I do it?  Hmmm....  Even if I'm unfortunate enough to be in the 0.77% of the group, all  I do is say oops and pay something like 20% penalty of what I owe (in most scenarios, I presume), will I do it?  I don't cheat on my taxes as a matter of principle, and I'm sure all of you are the same.  But for someone who wanna cheat, do you think IRS is catching a lot of those at this 0.77% audit rate?

With fairtax, it's much simpler.  The government can concentrate on the businesses with all its resources to make sure they don't cheat.  The audit rate can be much higher. Plus, sales tax and income tax have different psychological implications, IMHO.  In the case of income tax, one may feel that " the money is rightfully mine were it not for this confiscatory government; I didn't vote for this President and I disapprove of the war; so if I cheat on income tax, it's no big deal, morally".  In the case of sales tax, you collect the tax from the buyer; and you just simply forward it to the govt.  It's not yours.  If you take it, it's plain theft.

I am totally mystified as to why I am blabbering so much about this topic.  I am sure DH will tell me what is wrong with me when I go home today. 

I'll take the kayak hint, sort of, and promise not to post on this any more.

Hey, it's ok to disagree among us, and I learn everyday from you folks, especially you Martha and SG, too, even if I may disagree ocassionally.  Please don't take it personally.  Peace.

 

[Michael Moore]

The audit rate can be much higher

How many extra IRS employees do you want to hire?

cheers,
Michael

 

[amt]

How many extra IRS employees do you want to hire?

cheers,
Michael

Actually, I want to fire many of those.  The businesses that the govt have to audit will be much lower in number.  In 2003, the IRS had 143 Million returns (130 individual returns, plus others were corporate, partnership, trusts, etc) http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/WaysandMeansRebuttal.pdf page 9

With fairtax, all you need to worry about will be businesses.  Surely, out of  130 M individual returns in 2003, some may be businesses (sole proprietorship, etc), but I don't think it will be a large percentage.  Most trusts will cease to exist; there's no purpose for them.  So, conservatively my estimate is that there would only be about 15-20 million tax paying/forwarding entities you'll need to worry about.  If you fire 50% of IRS auditors, your audit rate will still be about 3%, about 4 times 0.77%. 

Plus, sales tax will be pretty hard, if not harder than income tax, to cheat.  Let's say you run a barber shop,  you can't cheat your sales volume, IRS (then may be called fairtax enforcer) can just look at the parking lot camera and count your customers.  If you're a chiropractor, you have all those insurance claims that will keep you in check.  How about Mr. Handyman who takes cash to fix your toilet?  I'll say there's no difference.  If he wants to cheat now, he doesn't report that cash income.  If he wants to cheat under fairtax, he either doesn't collect it or doesn't report it.  No difference. 

The govt can even discourage sales tax cheat by having a hotline that if you think someone is not reporting sales tax, you can be the whistleblower and can have a piece of that extra collection pie.  It would not be easy to cheat, at least not easier than the current convoluted system where honest citizens or even IRS folks don't know what is cheating and what's not.

 

[amt]

Here's a copy of the letter signed by many university professors and respected economists pleading the politicians, in favor of the fair tax.

http://fairtax.org/pdfs/Open_Letter_President.pdf

Here's a portion of it:

The America proposed by the FairTax Plan would feature:
• no federal income taxes,
• no payroll taxes,
• no self-employment taxes,
• no capital gains taxes,
• no gift or estate taxes,
• no alternative minimum taxes,
• no corporate taxes,
• no payroll withholding,
• no taxes on Social Security benefits or pension benefits,
• no personal tax forms,
• no personal or business income tax record keeping, and
• no personal income tax filing whatsoever.
No Internal Revenue Service; no April 15th; all gone, forever.

 

[retire@40]

With fairtax, it's much simpler.  The government can concentrate on the businesses with all its resources to make sure they don't cheat.  The audit rate can be much higher. Plus, sales tax and income tax have different psychological implications, IMHO.  In the case of income tax, one may feel that " the money is rightfully mine were it not for this confiscatory government; I didn't vote for this President and I disapprove of the war; so if I cheat on income tax, it's no big deal, morally".  In the case of sales tax, you collect the tax from the buyer; and you just simply forward it to the govt.  It's not yours.  If you take it, it's plain theft.

You said previously that under the current system the "super rich" pay very little income tax and you are wrong about that.  I know lots of multimillionaires and I've seen firsthand what they pay in federal and state taxes.  They pay more than what most people earn.

You also said previously that the "fairtax" has no loopholes and exclusions and you are wrong about that too.  Used goods under the so-called "fairtax" will not be subject to any tax.  There's going to be a pretty big black market of "used" goods.  Will the IRS have to start judging what is "new" and what is "used?"  Good luck with that.

Then you make two more blunders above.  

First, The government will not just concentrate on businesses, but will equally concentrate on each buyer.  I got stopped by the IRS equivalent while in Europe as I was coming out of a store when I purchased some batteries.  I was asked for the receipt for the batteries I purchased to make sure I paid the correct VAT (which is basically a sales tax to the end user).  It would really piss me off to go through that on a more frequent basis under a NST.

Second, if you are going to cheat because "it's your money" under the income tax system, you are also going to find a way to cheat under the NST for the same reason.

 

[retire@40]

The govt can even discourage sales tax cheat by having a hotline that if you think someone is not reporting sales tax, you can be the whistleblower and can have a piece of that extra collection pie.

They already have such a "hotline" under the current system.

 

[retire@40]

Actually, I want to fire many of those.  The businesses that the govt have to audit will be much lower in number.  In 2003, the IRS had 143 Million returns (130 individual returns, plus others were corporate, partnership, trusts, etc) http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/WaysandMeansRebuttal.pdf page 9
Plus, sales tax will be pretty hard, if not harder than income tax, to cheat.  Let's say you run a barber shop,  you can't cheat your sales volume, IRS (then may be called fairtax enforcer) can just look at the parking lot camera and count your customers.

What if there is no parking lot and/or no camera?

What if parents bring their kids to the barber, but the parent don't get a hair cut, will the "fairtax enforcer" count the parents leaving the barber to prove he didn't cut their hair?

Will there be a camera pointed to every business's front door?

Will the "fairtax enforcer" follow the barber to make sure he is not secretly cutting hair in his house? Will a camera have to be pointed at his house too and be under constant surveillance?

Just be careful what you wish for, because you might get it.

 

[amt]

You said previously that under the current system the "super rich" pay very little income tax and you are wrong about that.  I know lots of multimillionaires and I've seen firsthand what they pay in federal and state taxes.  They pay more than what most people earn.

It's all relative.  True, they now pay more than what most people earn.   They will also pay more than what most people earn when they spend under Fair Tax.

You also said previously that the "fairtax" has no loopholes and exclusions and you are wrong about that too.  Used goods under the so-called "fairtax" will not be subject to any tax.  There's going to be a pretty big black market of "used" goods.  Will the IRS have to start judging what is "new" and what is "used?"  Good luck with that.

It should be more simple than under current system where there are a gazillion IRS definitions, e.g., one folks here are familiar with, will be defining home office and defining what's personal use versus business use.  

Then you make two more blunders above.  

First, The government will not just concentrate on businesses, but will equally concentrate on each buyer.  I got stopped by the IRS equivalent while in Europe as I was coming out of a store when I purchased some batteries.  I was asked for the receipt for the batteries I purchased to make sure I paid the correct VAT (which is basically a sales tax to the end user).  It would really piss me off to go through that on a more frequent basis under a NST.

If they stopped you, I don't think they would have arrested you had you got the wrong VAT rate.  They would have most likely prosecuted the store.  At Sam's Club I have to stop at the store entrance EVERYTIME and show someone the receipt.  I don't mind showing it to the govt (maybe 1% of the time);  I doubt it would be that often.

Second, if you are going to cheat because "it's your money" under the income tax system, you are also going to find a way to cheat under the NST for the same reason.

Agreed.


Respectfully,

 

[retire@40]

If you're a chiropractor, you have all those insurance claims that will keep you in check.

Chiropractors are in check anyway under the current system. They get 1099-MISC forms from the insurance companies with a duplicate copy sent to the IRS.

 

[amt]

What if there is no parking lot and/or no camera?

What if parents bring their kids to the barber, but the parent don't get a hair cut, will the "fairtax enforcer" count the parents leaving the barber to prove he didn't cut their hair?

Will there be a camera pointed to every business's front door?

Will the "fairtax enforcer" follow the barber to make sure he is not secretly cutting hair in his house?  Will a camera have to be pointed at his house too and be under constant surveillance?

Just be careful what you wish for, because you might get it.

All I'm saying is that it won't be any easier to cheat under Fair Tax, compared to the current system.  Cheaters will cheat.  But, why would it be easier to cheat under Fair Tax than now?

 

[retire@40]

If they stopped you, I don't think they would have arrested you had you got the wrong VAT rate.  They would have most likely prosecuted the store.

They told me they would have made me pay a fine for either not paying the correct VAT or an even higher fine for not being able to produce the receipt for my purchases. I believe this goes on your record and if it happens enough times there may be jail time for you.

I'd rather stick with filing a 1040 form once a year than have to worry about each receipt I get with every purchase thoughout the year.

 

[bosco]

We significant income taxes last year and were in the highest bracket. I don't have a problem with that. It doesn't seem unfair to me. We were fortunate to be in that position.

Well said!! I wish more people had this attitude.

I am suspicious of anything that has to call itself "fair." That immediately implies to me that it is not. Say something often enough, no matter how untrue, and people start to believe it.

 

[retire@40]

Here's a copy of the letter signed by many university professors and respected economists pleading the politicians, in favor of the fair tax.

http://fairtax.org/pdfs/Open_Letter_President.pdf

Here's a portion of it:

The America proposed by the FairTax Plan would feature:
• no federal income taxes,
• no payroll taxes,
• no self-employment taxes,
• no capital gains taxes,
• no gift or estate taxes,
• no alternative minimum taxes,
• no corporate taxes,
• no payroll withholding,
• no taxes on Social Security benefits or pension benefits,
• no personal tax forms,
• no personal or business income tax record keeping, and
• no personal income tax filing whatsoever.
No Internal Revenue Service; no April 15th; all gone, forever.

Is all that fluff done to impress the uninformed?

Payroll taxes and self-employment taxes are the same thing, so that's a duplicate.

Federal income tax and payroll withholding are the same thing, so that's a duplicate.

Tax on social security/pension and federal income tax are the same thing, so that's a duplicate.

The "income tax" recordkeeping will be replaced with "sales tax" recordkeeping, so that's a non-issue.

Come on, no IRS?  Are you for real?

 

[Mr._johngalt]

We significant  income taxes last year and were in the highest bracket.  I don't have a problem with that.  It doesn't seem unfair to me.  We were fortunate to be in that position.

Spoken like a true liberal. I'll bet you think the government spent your
money wisely and carefully I know you know they wasted most of it.
And that doesn't bother you?

JG

 

[amt]

I am suspicious of anything that has to call itself "fair."  That immediately implies to me that it is not.  Say something often enough, no matter how untrue, and people start to believe it.

I challenge all of the opponents of the proposed "Fair Tax" to read every word of the following letter, which I already linked above, but will do it again for your convenience.  

http://fairtax.org/pdfs/Open_Letter_President.pdf

It's only 2 1/2 pages.  After that if you're skeptical, please explore www.fairtax.org and you'll get your answers most of the time.  If you are still opposed to it after that, I will say, it's our luck and the majority rules in a democracy.  But I believe the majority of Americans, after they carefully study the proposal, will support it.

Respectfully