Opinion of the FairTax

[AggregateDemand]

What most of you are forgetting is that the FairTax is designed to replace not only income taxes but also payroll taxes, which are highly regressive. The result is that all income brackets see a net decrease in their tax burden:



This raises doubt on the claim that the proposal would be revenue-neutral, but it dispels the criticism that it would be regressive.

The graph conveniently stops at 60 years old because the creators don't want America to know what the Fair Tax actually does--it makes socially-secure seniors pay for Social Security and all of the retirement tax subsidies they enjoyed during they're younger years. This is the best feature of the Fair Tax, and the true origin of the 'fair' moniker.

The problem with the Fair Tax is that is suppresses output because it taxes excess supplies, unlike the income tax, which actually subsidizes excess, unsold inventory. Proponents argue that tax avoidance will streamline manufacturing and make America more competitive. Falling prices will eventually offset the tax. Detractors say that Fair taxation will lead to an exponential increase in prices as taxes rise and inventory declines. Furthermore, they say that 0% income tax will not be enough to attract capital and manufacturing to the US. Instead, manufacturing will continue to move overseas to avoid the ad valorem tax on imputed wages.

[Slander and/or Libel]

What most of you are forgetting is that the FairTax is designed to replace not only income taxes but also payroll taxes, which are highly regressive. The result is that all income brackets see a net decrease in their tax burden:



This raises doubt on the claim that the proposal would be revenue-neutral, but it dispels the criticism that it would be regressive.

"Every single person pays less in taxes" only raises doubt on the claim of revenue neutrality?

[Deus Naturae]

"Every single person pays less in taxes" only raises doubt on the claim of revenue neutrality?

The revenue-neutrality claim is based on the expectation of an expanded tax base, but the tax itself would alter the amount that people spend on consumption so it's really impossible to predict.

[SATW]

Stupid name, stupid idea, stupid tax

[AggregateDemand]

"Every single person pays less in taxes" only raises doubt on the claim of revenue neutrality?

It taxes illegal immigrants, which undermines the argument that they don't pay-in to our society. You want to help illegal immigrants and your country, don't you?

[Mercenary]

I prefer consumption tax over income tax, but I am not so sure about the "FairTax". I don't really like the whole prebate thing. Really I don't like any kind of national tax. I would rather the states tax and then the federal government get money from the states based on population, or more ideally but less likely based on how their representatives vote.

And if you want to make it more progressive just charge a higher rate on luxury items like say televisions, computers, cellphones, etc. And do like some states do where food isn't taxed.

[Indy Texas]

I prefer consumption tax over income tax, but I am not so sure about the "FairTax". I don't really like the whole prebate thing. Really I don't like any kind of national tax. I would rather the states tax and then the federal government get money from the states based on population, or more ideally but less likely based on how their representatives vote.

And if you want to make it more progressive just charge a higher rate on luxury items like say televisions, computers, cellphones, etc. And do like some states do where food isn't taxed.

It is 2015. Televisions, computers and cell phones are not luxuries. You're veering into Heritage Foundation territory and insinuating that the lazy poors should be grateful for having such frivolities as refrigerators in their kitchens and glass panes in their windows.

[Mr. Illini]

Daft

[Representative MJM]

I really like the idea of a national consumption tax. My main problem is with the "prebates," because they are extremely small sums of money. I feel like they were just put there so they could put the label "progressive consumption tax" on the FairTax.

[Mercenary]

I prefer consumption tax over income tax, but I am not so sure about the "FairTax". I don't really like the whole prebate thing. Really I don't like any kind of national tax. I would rather the states tax and then the federal government get money from the states based on population, or more ideally but less likely based on how their representatives vote.

And if you want to make it more progressive just charge a higher rate on luxury items like say televisions, computers, cellphones, etc. And do like some states do where food isn't taxed.

It is 2015. Televisions, computers and cell phones are not luxuries. You're veering into Heritage Foundation territory and insinuating that the lazy poors should be grateful for having such frivolities as refrigerators in their kitchens and glass panes in their windows.

Cell phones, televisions, and computers exist in many forms. There are $800 cell phones and there are $50 pre paid cell phones. There are $300 computers and $2000 ones.

Are you going to argue a top of the line cell phone, computer, or television is not a luxury?

[MaxQue]

I prefer consumption tax over income tax, but I am not so sure about the "FairTax". I don't really like the whole prebate thing. Really I don't like any kind of national tax. I would rather the states tax and then the federal government get money from the states based on population, or more ideally but less likely based on how their representatives vote.

And if you want to make it more progressive just charge a higher rate on luxury items like say televisions, computers, cellphones, etc. And do like some states do where food isn't taxed.

It is 2015. Televisions, computers and cell phones are not luxuries. You're veering into Heritage Foundation territory and insinuating that the lazy poors should be grateful for having such frivolities as refrigerators in their kitchens and glass panes in their windows.

Cell phones, televisions, and computers exist in many forms. There are $800 cell phones and there are $50 pre paid cell phones. There are $300 computers and $2000 ones.

Are you going to argue a top of the line cell phone, computer, or television is not a luxury?

It's reflected in the fact the tax amount is higher for more expensive one. Let's suppose the tax is 10%. You pay 30$ of taxes for the 300$ one and 200$ for the 2000$ one.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I prefer consumption tax over income tax, but I am not so sure about the "FairTax". I don't really like the whole prebate thing. Really I don't like any kind of national tax. I would rather the states tax and then the federal government get money from the states based on population, or more ideally but less likely based on how their representatives vote.

And if you want to make it more progressive just charge a higher rate on luxury items like say televisions, computers, cellphones, etc. And do like some states do where food isn't taxed.

It is 2015. Televisions, computers and cell phones are not luxuries. You're veering into Heritage Foundation territory and insinuating that the lazy poors should be grateful for having such frivolities as refrigerators in their kitchens and glass panes in their windows.

Computers are used for such luxury activities such as finding a job.  We can't have poors doing that.