TexasCHLforum.com

Math itself doesn't discriminate, but it does prove 9% of 13,000 year spent when one's income is 13,500 a year is a much greater tax burden/makes life harder on that guy than 9% of 13,000 a year spent by Bill Gates whose income billions each year

I replied before you edited to add this. You are COMPLETELY ignoring the prebate that would come with the fairtax.

It's explained here: http://www.fairtax.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

1) dunno if the premise is true or not "Lower income earners also tend to buy more used items and less new items"

I imagine lower income earners prefer to buy new durable goods" but will be restricted by this to buying used items because of this new "penalty"

I'm pretty sure that Bill Gates and Oprah have never bumped into each other while buying clothes at a resale shop. Warren Buffet is probably not the target consumer for most used car lots. When I was poor (not rich now, but not poor either), I bought furniture at second hand furniture stores or from newspaper ads where people were selling their used furniture. This is true today without a "new penalty" for buying new.

Sales taxes are generally regressive. Flat % of tax on income is "fair"

Without the prebate, I might generally agree your statement about the sales tax. With the prebate, the only thing being taxed is disposable income. If only 2% of your total income is disposable (above that which is required to buy essentials) then you are only being taxed on that 2% if an when you spend it.

I don't disagree with the flat income tax. My only problem is that those who hide income now would still escape the flat tax. I want illegal immigrants and drug dealers to pay their share.

Taxing spending leads to hoarding, such that persons with income brackets like Bill Gates would hoard rather than spend.

I would be willing to wager that Bill Gates would not "hoard" money. It's highly doubtfull that his money is sitting in a vault somewhere earning him nothing. He would get a tax shelter from investing his money. You do know that increasing investing also promots economic growth right?

The Mad Moderate wrote:

tbrown wrote:

The Mad Moderate wrote:

tbrown wrote:I want a sales tax that equally taxes every dollar someone chooses to spend.

Equality and choice. Why are they anathema to the left wing?

What do you not understand about the fact that a sales tax end up taxing a larger percent of lower income earners wages than it does the rich so you're ok with a tax increase on the poor but not the rich.

I know math and English are hard for some people but 8% of $175 is the same no matter who pays it.

Math doesn't discriminate.
It's the same for Rich or Poor.
It's the same for Black or White.
It's the same for Male or Female.
It's the same for Young or Old.
It's the same for Christian or Muslim.

Why do the socialists hate equal treatment in the law for everyone?





If you were wondering, it's $14.

You seem to need a math lesson, I said overall higher rate, it I make 24k in a year and spend most of it I'm taxed 8% on what I spend, now if someone was to make 124k and spend 50k yes all 50K is taxed at 8% but what about the other 74k that goes untaxed, so overall I pay a higher rate than someone making more money than me. Do not insult my intelligence.

With the prebate that is being proposed by the fairtax.org folks, the person making 24K would pay less tax as a percentage. The taxes that would be paid on essentials would be covered through the monthly prebate. So in essence, somone who only makes enough to cover essentials would be paying a net of zero. As a matter of fact, someone living on ramen noodles would actually have a negative tax burden.

Lower income earners also tend to buy more used items and less new items, used items would not be taxed, therefore low income earners also get a break there.

The only group of low income earners that would see a higher percentage than middle and upper income earners would be illegal immigrants since they would not receive the prebate. I'm certainly ok with removing some of the economic incentive from being an "undocumented worker".

The Mad Moderate wrote:How can y'all support the "grass roots" tea party (funded by corporate interests) that used people as pawns to get more favorable legislation for big business and not support these people who are not marxist nor communist, love their country, and are tired of getting the short end of the stick from Washington and Wall Street.If I'm a Communist because I think the top 1% and major corporations have far more influence in government than the rest of us, then there is a problem with this country I'm not calling for wealth redistribution, I'm asking for fairness, Warren Buffett paying a lower tax rate than me is sicking. And before someone says it a flat tax is not a "fair tax" it would be a major tax increase for a majority of Americans. Why many on the right continue to vote for people who in every way possible work against the interests of the majority and continue to support the rich and big business baffles me.

Here's why I support what the GOP calls a pro growth tax program.

I, like many others, work for a large corporation. As long as the corporation is supplying a good living for me and my family, I hope that the company turns a good profit, and try to do my part to ensure it happens. Whenever the corporation has a surplus of capital, they look for ways to expand the business.Expanding businesses also provide employment oportunities for more people (upward income mobility). They understand that having a large diversified company makes the company more viable during times that margins (profits) are being squeezed. Exxon is a good example, they are a hugely profitable business when only 8% of their gross revenue is profit. How many small businesses could survive with margins that thin?

Do I think that the salary, golden parachutes, and bonuses of some executives are obscene? ABSOLUTELY! But it's not the government's place to tell a company what to do with it's money. In a free market, the company that spends extra capital wisely will survive the lean times while companies that throw money at a select few executives will fail. If the governement would have stayed out of it, we would have seen it with Lehman Brothers, Bear Sterns, AIG,General Motors, and several others. It was the government that rewarded the foolish and lavish expendeture of capital, the free market would have let those companies fail due to the mismanagement and lack of preparing for lean times. As a result, no one learned any hard lessons and the behavior will be repeated.

OH, and I don't want a flat tax. I want a national sales tax. It is the only tax system that forces illegal aliens, drug dealers, strippers, prostitutes, and other illegal cash only businesses to pay their share of the tax load.

The term flea party is normally meant as a derogatory term for the OWS crowd...............and I like it.