wouldn't the rich benefit a ton from this?

>allow jobs to not be outsourced
I am intrigued. Any more aspects to this?

>>119766
annnnd your point is?

>>119771

Most of our tax dollars come from the rich?

Good idea but politically infeasible.

Because workers get fucked by payroll tax and high income tax while investors pay very low capital gains all workers from working class to upper-middle get fucked while the rich end up paying less with the current system, but, people are ignorant and think the current system is actually progressive.

A TRULY progressive system would be better than a flat/fair tax, but, its not going to happen because once you start getting too complex rich people who can give campaign donations and post-politics jobs away will corrupt the system in their favor.

Our tax code is insanely complicated but i'm not sure id prefer a sales tax

>>119766
Nope.

The rich pay a lower proportion of their income as taxes than the middle class do because capital gains tax is lower than income + payroll (payroll tax is about 7.5% on employee and 7.5 on employer so total is 15%, so even people at very low income tax brackets pay a larger proportion of their income total than the idle rich do).

>>119745
Originally supported it for the sake of having an alternative to the income tax, then I remembered that the alternative to the income tax is simply not having it.

It doesn't help that it still encourages a large federal government; which quite frankly we don't need. Add the fact that it'd likely distribute the tax burden to the middle and lower class (depending at the rate of taxation), and meh.

>>119790

No. Just stop making stuff up.

>>119790

>a lower portion of 100k is still more than a higher portion of 20k

>>119776
Well most of the tax system in place caters around income as opposed to spending. The idea is that there would be a single flat high sales tax and no income tax. What you see is a flat 23% sales tax across the board for everything. Anyone buying something will be charged 23%. BUT you will not pay Social security, Medicare, Medicaid, FICA, or anything else similar to that. All your investments are made tax free and your employers do not pay tax either. To allow benefit from the poor you take the amount of poverty (as determined by the commerce board?) and give every last person 23% of that for being a citizen. This is so you don't have to pay taxes (well you do but it is rebated to you beforehand) on the first dollar amounts totally poverty levels.

So say the poverty level is 20K a year, every citizen would receive 4600 in tax credit (to cover $20,000 of purchases' tax) and anything over that you are paying for yourself.

The rich typically don't pay anywhere near the amount you think they do because they can find loopholes in tax codes in place. Most of your tax dollars come from the middle class.

>>119790

This is wrong. You're assuming rich = substantial assets = bulk of income. It doesn't pan out that way.

You also have to take into account tons of other kinds of taxes (property taxes, for example, are substantial in many places, e.g., NY).

>>119801
>>The rich typically don't pay anywhere near the amount you think they do because they can find loopholes in tax codes in place. Most of your tax dollars come from the middle class.

I don't really believe you at all since it seems like you're spouting tin foil stuff.

>>119801

>The rich typically don't pay anywhere near the amount you think they do because they can find loopholes in tax codes in place. Most of your tax dollars come from the middle class.

This is complete bullshit. While I don't disagree that the rich would pay more if they didn't exploit the tax code (but that's what it's there for, right?), they still nonetheless pay a significant amount of overall taxes.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/22652.html

>>119796
I never said the rich pay less absolutely: they pay more absolutely. They do, however, pay less PROPORTIONATELY.

Although if you're using 20k and 100k as your theoretical numbers the person making 100k will pay a greater proportion: the system breaks down when you compare someone making 50k to someone making 500k: the reason that the rich pay a lower proportion is because the government favors investors over workers to a ridiculous degree.

Basically, workers get dicked over in favor of rich people who make most of their money from having lots of money in their name already.

>>119794
Why would I make this shit up? google/wikipedia search payroll tax rates, income tax rates, and capital gains tax rates if you don't believe me.

The fundamental problem with our tax system that causes it to be regressive is the differences between capital gains and income/income+payroll tax rates.

oh, and to differentiate me from the guy who also understands how crap the current tax code is but supports a large sales tax: sales taxes are also regressive as hell for obvious reasons. A flat, proportional tax on all income (from work and investment) combined with the abolition of the payroll tax (which is horribly regressive and discourages job creation) is the ideal solution, not a crippling sales tax that will hurt the poor.

>>119827

Yes, because encouraging investment in capital is less beneficial than taxing the middle class a little bit less.

Taxes aren't a zero-sum game: they become off-set other places. Before you spout shit wanting to tax capital gains more, read this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/business/01view.html?_r=2&bl&ex=1212897600&en=da02c25e
6d56b662&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin

the fair tax would just create an even more massive black market to get goods without paying sales tax.

If anything there would be more government due to them making sure that to make sure that companies aren't doing anything sketchy to make more income without having to pay taxes on it.

Also the massive overhaul of how our tax system works would probably be good in the long run, but would fuck us in the short run.

With china resurgent as they are they'd take any temporary weakness to fuck us.

tl;dr lol no

>>119809
..................................... higher total (work + cap gains) income is VERY strongly correlated with a higher proportion of that income being cap gains (investment).

This is simply a fact. You can google it if you want.

>>119837
Thats nice, but, when you graduate from college and end up paying 40%+ of your income total in income tax and payroll (after adding the 7.5% or so you didn't get in your paycheck because your employer sent it to the gov as their half of the payroll tax instead) tax, remember that its so rich people who don't have to work get to enjoy their low capital gains tax.

>>119823
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/250.html

First chart, notice how that the rich are paying less than 23% and sometimes (look 2-5% bracket) they are paying less of a percentage than people below them? That is what i'm talking about.

>>119834
>"The FairTax is regressive and shifts the tax burden onto lower and middle income people"

The truth: The FairTax actually eliminates and reimburses all federal taxes for those below the poverty line. This is accomplished through the universal prebate and by eliminating the highly regressive FICA payroll tax. Today, low and moderate income Americans pay far more in FICA taxes than income taxes. Those spending at twice the poverty level pay a FairTax of only 11.5 percent -- a rate much lower than the income and payroll tax burden they bear today. Meanwhile, the wealthy pay the 23 percent retail sales tax on their retail purchases.
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_fairtax_four#regressive

Get rid of the income tax and property taxes.

We don't need a fair tax at that point, the spice will flow naturally.

>>119853

Look at the chart more closely. A number of groups do that for whatever reason. The top 5 still pays 60 percent and the top 10 still pays higher then any group below them.

>>119894
If i had 100 Billion dollars and paid 1% and you had 100 Million and paid 10% i'd still be paying a larger dollar amount than you, but that isn't the point.

>>119918

The rich are still paying a higher percentage than everyone else

>>119921
The top 6-10% of people are paying lower percentage of taxes than the top 50% of people, how is that lower?

>>119934

You have some bias eyes. On average, the TOP 10 PERCENT pays 18.79%. This is higher then all of the numbers below it. 18.79% is the average tax that the rich(top 10) pay. It's true that 6-10 pays less, but that is true for the lower rows as well.

>>119959
My eyes may be biased but it isn't tired at all like it is supposed to be. If it was it would be a steady slow climb the higher up you go, but this isn't the case. There is a problem here. Which would show that the current tax system is flawed (in a very noticeable way) so this needs to be fixed, the Fair tax is a way to do so.

>>119993
>>a steady slow climb the higher up you go

That is the case. Your problem is that you're forgetting the top 50 also contains the top 1 who's average raises the entire average. Look at the top 1, 2-5, 6-10, 11-25, and 26-50 ect. It keeps going down.

We're both kinda stupid here btw. I'm so ashamed.

So because i'm slightly above the poverty line, you'd like to tax 100% of my income and only a very small percentage of the income of rich people? This makes it fair now?

>>120040
I can tell you make poverty level income because you can't understand something that is simple. Enjoy your assembly line.

>>120046
well that's a reasonable and response. Way to ignore my point and go straight to insults.

You wish to have a 23% tax on 100% of my income and a 23% tax on 20% of rich people's income. What exactly can I not understand other than why someone would think this is fair?

The fair tax is nothing more than a flat tax. Flat taxes are inherently regressive. What America needs are more progressive taxes.

>>120071

It's not. It's more like you're reading the chart wrong. Poor people average a 2.3 tax

>>120087
I'm not reading a chart at all. You said a flat 23% sales tax on everything. Since I'm slightly above the poverty level I get no kickback from the government and I will have to spend all of my income to pay for my needs. So 100% of my income will be taxed at 23%
Meanwhile mister rich fucker makes tons of extra money and only needs to spend about 20% of his income to "survive". The rest of his money gets dumped into banks and investments which aren't taxed. So he is paying 23% taxes on 20% of his income.

This means i'm paying 23% of my total income in taxes.
Rich fucker is paying 4.6% of his total income in taxes.

>>120140

Ah, I see. Sorry to hear about your problem bro. The rich guy will also pay 23 percent when he uses his money to buy something. A flat tax would suck anyway.

So we can shift the tax burden in the direction of the middle class? Great idea.

fair tax is unfair regressive tax.

now flat tax, that's the bees knees.

Interesting fact when Eastern European countries converted to a flat tax system tax revenue increased dramatically.