Yes it does, you fucking retard. You have $9 trillion in debt, you need a huge amount of money just on basic upkeep for your nation. Cutting taxes for some people means you are shifting the burden onto others.

“If a rich person doesn’t pay a tax, why do you assume a poor person will have to pick it up?”

Because someone has to.

“When a rich person doesn’t buy the tags for his car, do poor people get charged extra on their tags?”

What a stupid analogy.

“How do you think rich people are going to spend those untaxed capital gains?
they pretty much only have two options.

1) spend it.
2) re-invest it.”

Or

3.) Spend it somewhere where they don’t have to pay taxes, like outside the United States.

“They could save it, I suppose, but eventually, they’ll spend it.”

No. Not true. If it was, you wouldn’t have people dying with million dollar portfolios.

“if they invest it, that’s more money in the commerical economy, which helps growth (as explained ad nasuem above).

I can see how this might impact poor people….you know with the increase in wages and employement opportunities and all…..”

The whole trickle down economy is bullshit. The less money you have, the less opportunities you have. Increasing the amount of investments only helps those who are already rich enough to invest.

“under the FT every dollar below the poverty level is spent tax free.”

What about the middle class, since you seem to be fixated on the word poor? Too poor to benefit from the abolishing of the capital gains tax, too rich to benefit from the poverty level rebate.

however, the removal of a tax on the rich during the course of a complete tax overhaul, does not imply that the poor will be newly burdened.

The removal of capital gains taxes from people who earn capital gains has no impact on people who do not earn capital gains.

Likewise, the passing of a cigarette tax does not impact people who do not smoke.

I assume we can agree that the richer you are, the more likely you are to have capital gains, right? conversely, the poorer you are, the less likely you are to have capital gains, correct?

If a rich person doesn’t pay a tax, why do you assume a poor person will have to pick it up?
When a rich person doesn’t buy the tags for his car, do poor people get charged extra on their tags?

I hope we can also agree that rich people spend more money than poor people. The prebate proves that the FT rate is linearlly progressive. the more you spend, the higher your rate.

How do you think rich people are going to spend those untaxed capital gains?
they pretty much only have two options.

1) spend it.
2) re-invest it.

They could save it, I suppose, but eventually, they’ll spend it.

if they spend it, they are taxed on it. since they are rich it’s likely they are spending above the poverty level, so they’ll pay 23% of each dollar instantly, or between

Wow. You’re stupid.

‘Poor people don’t pay capital gains, so they won’t be hurt when that a tax on something they don’t have is removed.’

In reality, the rich will pay less in taxes meaning the poor will have to pay more to compensate.

No. The FairTax removes the Capital Gains tax.

However…when you spend your gain on new goods and services, you’ll pay the same FT rate as you would for every other purchase.

This is designed to encourage investment, which strengthens the commericial side of the economy. And, as I posted above, stronger commerical results in more jobs and higher wages.

This also allows the FT to tax rich people while not taxing poor people. Just like poor people don’t have capital gains to worry about taxing under the current system, they’ll won’t be hurt by the removal of those taxes. Rich people who paid CGtax in the current system will be taxed when they spend those gains.

Thanks for the question.

I’m a poster on fairtaxgroups.com, and I’m a parts warehouse manager for an auto dealer in Oklahoma. We had a slow friday due to the holiday.

I’m also a life long democrat.

“driscredited arguments and plain lies”? name one.

You are the person that continually referred to the FairTax as the Flat Tax, conisdering them the same, despite the obvious differences between them.

Just because you made yourself look like an ignorant fool, you shouldn’t go around blaming me for it.

C.S. if you’d like to take a wag at me or my position, feel free to try, either here or at fairtaxgroups.com.

Well, I’ll tell you one thing, you have more stamina than I do. I left this thread when you started flooding it with nonsense.

I would have responded to your particularly ignorant posts and called you a crackpot, but I had a deadline to meet.

Let me fix that for you.

“Nope, just a guy with a couple of hours paid for by flattax.org who uses discredited arguments and plain lies to debate with people who are smarter than I am.”

There. You’re welcome.

Nope, just a guy with a couple paid hours to kill who enjoys logically and factually destroying people who are ignorant about the topics they discuss.

Now, if you had said I was a “major league asshole”. Then I would agree.

In either case, it appears this topic has run out of uninformed people who wish to express their lack of knowledge.

If not, swing on over to http://www.fairtaxgroups.com and argue with me there.

You don’t need to rebuild it, just modify it slightly and make it more simpler.”

We did that with the Tax Reform act of 1986. 15 tax brackets ranging from 11% to 50% got ’simplifed’ to 2 tax brackets, 15% and 28%. very few deductions, only a couple of social engineering programs, everyone over the age of five listed by SSN, it was very simple.

20 years later…and we need to do it again?

suppose we do, will it take another 20 years to need simplification again?

really? by who and when?

The FairTax was developed in 1995 by the AFFT, a group of houston businessmen who knew there had to be something better than the current system

Pick a Flat tax proposal and tell me how it’s equal to the FT. I can’t find one “flat tax” proposal that is based on consumption or is levied by a sales tax.

“As far as the rest, all I’ll say is there is nothing like a true believer.”

What, you can’t offer anything that suggests i’m wrong so you just give up?

You ask ill-informed questions. I answer them accurately and politely.
You make non-factual statements, and I politely expose your fallacies with logic and fact.

…and all you can do in response is continue being ignorant (FairTax/Flat Tax) and start calling me names?

i’m the ‘true believer’ while you cannot understand that th Flat Tax and the FairTax are similar only in the idea that there is only one rate (despite the fact that those rates are very differnt and futhermore are imposed on two very different portions of the economy)?

I’m beginning to wonder if your handle is somewhat contradictory.

Gasoline taxes do not affect gasoline consumption.
Road diesel taxes do not affect miles driven by this nation’s truckers.
High tax stamps on cigarettes don’t stop smoking, it just pushes the buyers to tax havens and MSRP prices fall to keep the market.

Not a straw man at all. How did the high tax rates that followed prohibition affect alcohol consumption?

But i digress, the FT is not an excise tax.

The FT is an inclusive tax built into the price of a new retail good or service designed to replace the embedded taxes already present in all goods and services.

Excise taxes are exclusive taxes tacked on top of the value of a good or service designed to alter the demand by artifically altering the price.

The Flat Tax…yes.
But I’m not pushing the Flat Tax.

(perhaps you should work on your enlightened-ment)

“…a $500k house with a 23% tax and no deduction costs me more than a $500k house with no tax and a deduction.”

This is obviously a new house you are talking about, right? Because the FT only applies to new houses.

And no..under the FT a $500K house costs….$500K. You’ll get a $500K loan and you make payments against your $500K principal.

The FT is NOT ADDED to the price of the house, it IS part of the price of the house.

“Not only that the bank will tell me I can’t afford a $500k house with a 23% tax and no deduction.”

I don’t see why not. The 23% tax is part of the $500K price. you can’t buy the $500K house without the builder paying $115K to the government in FT, and you can bet the builder isn’t going to eat $115K or risk the government wanting that money (plus interest) later.

“So guess what, I’ll only pay $350k for that house now because that is all I can afford. So will everyone else, so house prices will go down.”

If you don’t understand the situation as I have laid it out above…you will never understand it. The FT is not ON TOP of the current price of the house. The price of the house (and it’s future value) has the FT incorporated into it. You can’t buy a new house w/o the FT component, therefore EVERY house value in the market has the FT built into it.

“So you’ve basically just stolen $150k in equity from the home seller”

Nope, If we are talking FT we are talking new houses…no equity in a new house, unless the buyer brings it from thier old house. A home builder is in it for the profits, not the equity (Their equity is the moeny they spent building the home)

“but wait! Since the bank holds the note you have really stolen the money from the bank. Anyone want to guess how the bank is going to recoup the money lost by your scheme?

Right, they are going to foreclose on houses. The glut of available houses will reduce the value even further, robbing everyone else of their home equity (which is the majority of most people’s net worth).”

The home’s values don’t change. Your available credit doesn’t change. You have more money to spend on your mortgage (which lessens the chance of forclosure). You get to sell your used home tax free, and if you buy a new home your tax burden is built into the price of the house.

Your logic is flawed because you are trying to add the FT on top of the value of an item.
In reality, since every retail item has the FT built into its value, the perceived value of something does not change.

But wait! I thought flat tax was revenue neutral? If everyone’s taxes have gone down, how is it revenue neutral?”

I dunno how it would work under the Flat Tax…I’m not in support of the Flat tax because I don’t feel it work.

However, if you meant FairTax instead, I’ll take a wag at answering your question.

The FairTax IS revenue neutral (as proven by three different studies including the President’s Council on Tax Reform…when then went on to change the provisions of the FT into some other NRST and called it a bad idea)

The FairTax raises exactly as much revenue for the federal government as the current income tax system does. (still not enough to cover the federal budget, either way, but hey, let’s fix the burst pipe before we start bailing the house out)

The FairTax is RN because it takes a smaller piece of more dollars.

Right now, only income is taxed. Under the FT, consumption is taxed. Consumption ALWAYS outpaces income.

So, no, not everyone has lower taxes.

Many people don’t pay into the income tax system. People paid cash under the table, tourists, undocumented workers, people who don’t have incomes but still spend accumulated wealth (trust fund babies, for example).

Let’s use a trite but obvious example; Paris Hilton. in 2006 Ms Hilton had three taxable income sources. The Simple Life show, The Carl’s Junior commerical, and that video (I gonna take the high road and assume Ms Hilton paid taxes on her piece of that, um….pie) (Crap…was ‘House of Wax’ made in 2006? If it was, she probably doesn’t deserve anything from her role in it anyway, amirite?)

While I’m sure she was paid handsomely for those three or four jobs, I’m sure she spent WAY MORE than she made. How? she spent wealth, money she had/earned/got before jan 1 2006.

She only paid income tax on her income..and her family probably has some good tax shelters in place to make that rate as low as possible. What would she had paid in taxes if 23% of every dollar she spent went towards her tax burden? (and frankly, i doubt that $2348 prebate check means nearly as much to her as it might someone who was flipping burgers at Carl’s Jr all year.)

Adding further insult to injury at Ms. Hilton’s expense…I’m also going to make the bold assumption that she doesn’t shop at garage sales, and she probably doesn’t buy used cars to plow drunkenly into things. Adam, our $10,000 year burger flipper is probably not buying brand new cell phones (with matching shoes) and cars. He’s probably living on hand-me-downs and garage sales, hsi only “new” purchases are food (probably less than ms hilton spends) and utilities (again, probably less than ms hilton).

Right now we tax 35%-45% of income dollars.

After the FT we tax 23% of over-poverty level dollars.

Ponies will not be free, either way…but you could spend your prebate on one if you like.