The Benefits of the Fair Tax
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-02-2014, 01:19 PM (This post was last modified: 14-02-2014 01:52 PM by Cathym112.)
RE: The Benefits of the Fair Tax
(14-02-2014 01:06 PM)toadaly Wrote:  The first is that it's a lot less politicized when there is reasoning for why your tax bill is what it is that extends beyond just "because we have the guns and you have to comply". It satisfies the innate sense of fair play if what you pay is commensurate with the benefit you receive.

Commensurate with the benefits who receives? Benefits the taxpayer receives? Thats a little silly, since one could easily make the argument that they receive no benefit from services they don't utilize. i.e., I don't have kids - I see no commensurate value in paying taxes that fund the schools. Further, those who receive government assistance, pay no taxes into that system to begin with. So I'm not sure how the senior, disabled or poor get anything commensurate, since they pay nothing in.


I think what Wazzel was trying to say is that the government supplies a lot of services. The FDA to keep our food free of chemicals, and our drugs safer. We have the EPA which does its best to keep the environment safer, we have the FBI to investigate crimes, and the CIA, homeland security, the military, etc.etc. etc., as a service that the government provides.

The government even helps with research by way of grants.

If you want to pay less in taxes, you have to be okay with understanding that it means no more border patrol between here and mexico, and drastically reducing our military. If you are ok with that, great. Your system of less taxes and smaller government works for you.

But if you aren't okay with that, then you gotta pay for the services you expect to get. What Wazzel was trying to say is the economist's motto: There is no such thing as a free lunch.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Cathym112's post
14-02-2014, 01:35 PM
RE: The Benefits of the Fair Tax
(14-02-2014 01:10 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(14-02-2014 12:47 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  So, it is only voluntary to a small degree, within a limited amount of choices, and a limited geographic distance, and therefore, you're argument is again mischaracterizing what I said. So, buying food is - for all intents and purposes - mandatory. Please stop doing this.

That is assuming that, when you turned 18 and moved out from home, you had no choice in where you wanted to go. Personally, I'm a big city person. The moment I could afford it, I abandoned the small town I grew up in and moved smack in the middle of Manhattan. In NYC I had dozens of choices for supermarkets within a few blocks--some were expensive, most were very expensive. That's the price you pay to live in Manhattan. It costs more, but, if you're a city lover, you get a lot more.

On the other hand, some people love the country, or the beach. They may choose to start their family in a rural area. For them, they sacrifice the choice that city folks have and need to drive longer to get anywhere, however they get a lot more space, feel they're getting a lot more to live in the country.

See, it's voluntary. When you have thousands of local entities (be it supermarkets or governments) all competing for your business, all offering different pluses and minuses, all at different price points, then YOU ARE FREE TO CHOOSE. That, to me, is the key. Free will and liberty are respected.

However the current US tax system says if you're born in the US, then for the rest of your life, even if you move to Mars, you must report back to the IRS every transaction you do every day of your life until you die, and the government will decide how much they will take for themselves and what they will let you live off. If you don't like, tough. Your only escape is to die, and then the government will take it in with an estate tax anyway.

You seriously cannot see how one system is voluntary and the other is not?
Frank, I grew up in small town america and like yourself, moved to NYC the minute I could. My apartment is in Bay Ridge Brooklyn. I moved back upstate and headquartered my business here because the cost of living is so cheap. My clients are in NYC, so I'm back and forth a lot. I respect your right to choose where you live.

However, you and I are a lot different than most people. You and I have Money, ambition, drive, and willingness to leave their safety net. You need money to move, money for security deposit and money for rent. in NYC, thats thousands in start up capital. Not everyone has these choices and to assume that just because YOU had them, and therefore EVERYONE must have them is unrealistic and egotistical. Can you not see that a lot of poor individuals who were born in the a ghetto in the Bronx cannot just pick up and move? Most - if not all - cannot just move out of the city or move into a city whenever it suits them.

Further, public transportation is available (subway and bus is $2.75 for a single fare ticket), but getting on the subway to go to another store completely negates the savings. $2.75 to go from Food Emporium on 86th and 2nd to 96th and third and another $2.75 to get back again. Whatever cost saved is eaten up in transportation.

Walking distance? There is usually only 1 grocery store every 15 blocks. Further, you have your limited choices between Gristedes, Food Emporium, Trader Joes, and Whole Foods. (or, if you are lazy, Fresh Direct) I'm talking about grocery chains, not bodegas (very limited selection) and mom and pop stores (a dying breed thanks to capitalism).

So again, food purchases are only partially voluntary, within a small number of choices, and a small geographic location.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2014, 02:05 PM
RE: The Benefits of the Fair Tax
(14-02-2014 01:06 PM)toadaly Wrote:  
(14-02-2014 11:30 AM)wazzel Wrote:  There is no tax scheme that will be problem free or live up to everyone's idea of fair. The government (all levels) require a certian amount of money to provide services to the public. IMO by changeing up the scheme you are just playing tricks on the public. The total amount still has to be collected and unless you are on the upper end or lower end I doubt your bottom line will change much. If we want to pay less in taxes, which is really what the griping is about, we must be willing to live with less services from all levels of government. If we the public continually want more services from the government we better get used to paying.

When I say government I mean all levels not the federal level specifically.

Paying less is certainly part of it, and as a libertarian myself, I'd like to see government substantially smaller. That said, a tax system that is justifiable in terms of the value of services received, accomplishes two things.

The first is that it's a lot less politicized when there is reasoning for why your tax bill is what it is that extends beyond just "because we have the guns and you have to comply". It satisfies the innate sense of fair play if what you pay is commensurate with the benefit you receive.

The second, is that if the tax is avoidable in a way that does not harm overall productivity (property taxes and consumption taxes fit this, but income tax does not), then it puts a form of market pressure on government, which is something sorely lacking right now.

I would like to see the government shrink to, even tho I am not politically affiliated. Less taxes would be nice, but it will take a hit to service to make that happen.

First point, fair is relative. We do not see or acknowlede all we receive from our tax payments.

Second, you want taxes unavoidable so the revenue stream can be constent as possible. I see no reason why the type of tax matters. If you are alloted to pay $30k in taxes a year the government will get $30k in taxes from you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2014, 02:10 PM
RE: The Benefits of the Fair Tax
(14-02-2014 01:35 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  So again, food purchases are only partially voluntary, within a small number of choices, and a small geographic location.

Sure, Cathy, by that standard, nothing is voluntary. Even the person you marry is not voluntary. I'm sure a lot of men would like to marry Meghan Fox, and that's just not an option for them. BUT, you're using this argument to claim that because property taxes are not 100% voluntary in every possible sense, THEREFORE, it is justified to remove ALL choice and just let the government tell us what to do. If your logic were sound, why not apply that to marriage. Since who you marry is, according to you, not completely voluntary, THEREFORE, we should just let the government pick our spouses for us and throw us in jail if we resist their choice.

Why is the concept of free choice so offensive? I'm sure you like it for things like marriage, food, etc. So why not let people CHOOSE from a bunch of competing tax jurisdictions all vying to offer you the best services at the best price? What's wrong with that? Why do you favor removing free will completely, and defend the current system which says that even if you move to Mars, there is no escape, and for the rest of your life you must surrender to uncle sam all the fruits of your labor for him to decide what he'll keep, and he'll throw in jail if you hide anything. What's so offensive about respecting people's free will and giving them choices?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2014, 02:12 PM
RE: The Benefits of the Fair Tax
(14-02-2014 01:19 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  
(14-02-2014 01:06 PM)toadaly Wrote:  The first is that it's a lot less politicized when there is reasoning for why your tax bill is what it is that extends beyond just "because we have the guns and you have to comply". It satisfies the innate sense of fair play if what you pay is commensurate with the benefit you receive.

Commensurate with the benefits who receives? Benefits the taxpayer receives? Thats a little silly, since one could easily make the argument that they receive no benefit from services they don't utilize. i.e., I don't have kids - I see no commensurate value in paying taxes that fund the schools. Further, those who receive government assistance, pay no taxes into that system to begin with. So I'm not sure how the senior, disabled or poor get anything commensurate, since they pay nothing in.


I think what Wazzel was trying to say is that the government supplies a lot of services. The FDA to keep our food free of chemicals, and our drugs safer. We have the EPA which does its best to keep the environment safer, we have the FBI to investigate crimes, and the CIA, homeland security, the military, etc.etc. etc., as a service that the government provides.

The government even helps with research by way of grants.

If you want to pay less in taxes, you have to be okay with understanding that it means no more border patrol between here and mexico, and drastically reducing our military. If you are ok with that, great. Your system of less taxes and smaller government works for you.

But if you aren't okay with that, then you gotta pay for the services you expect to get. What Wazzel was trying to say is the economist's motto: There is no such thing as a free lunch.

Someone who understands. High five!

It is also more that the federal level services too. Government at local and state level provides services too. If you shift the service from one to the other it still has to be paid for in some form or fassion. A mile of road cost the same to build no mater what level of government pays for it.

Changine the way the money is collected is a shell game. We get a few small wins to feel like it is good, but the guy holding the shells is the only real winner.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2014, 02:17 PM
RE: The Benefits of the Fair Tax
(14-02-2014 02:05 PM)wazzel Wrote:  Less taxes would be nice, but it will take a hit to service to make that happen.

Not really. I live in Switzerland, where taxes are cheaper than the US and the services are light years ahead even of Sweden. Nobody is hungry or homeless. Everybody gets all the care they need, everybody can find a good paying job. The roads are immaculate. And they didn't skimp on defense. It is, imo, the best in the world. The bridges and roads have buried explosives if they get invaded, every single building, from a home to an office to a super market, has bomb shelters underneath, they have nuclear-proof shelters buried in the alps so the people can survive an all-out global nuclear war. The government is anal, meticulous and leaves nothing to chance. YET, it does this all on much less tax revenue per capita than the US. Clearly, there's A LOT of room for efficiency improvements in the US.

(14-02-2014 02:05 PM)wazzel Wrote:  I see no reason why the type of tax matters. If you are alloted to pay $30k in taxes a year the government will get $30k in taxes from you.

Really? So, let's say the tax is attached to charity. Every time you do something for somebody, you have to pay a $1,000 tax. Maybe a smile tax. Every time you're happy, there's a tax. Seriously, think through that statement. OF COURSE the type of tax matters because whatever you tax you're discouraging. You don't want to attach the tax to good things that benefit society, like smiling, charity, OR WORKING HARD.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2014, 02:28 PM
RE: The Benefits of the Fair Tax
(14-02-2014 02:10 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(14-02-2014 01:35 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  So again, food purchases are only partially voluntary, within a small number of choices, and a small geographic location.

Sure, Cathy, by that standard, nothing is voluntary. Even the person you marry is not voluntary. I'm sure a lot of men would like to marry Meghan Fox, and that's just not an option for them. BUT, you're using this argument to claim that because property taxes are not 100% voluntary in every possible sense, THEREFORE, it is justified to remove ALL choice and just let the government tell us what to do. If your logic were sound, why not apply that to marriage. Since who you marry is, according to you, not completely voluntary, THEREFORE, we should just let the government pick our spouses for us and throw us in jail if we resist their choice.

Why is the concept of free choice so offensive? I'm sure you like it for things like marriage, food, etc. So why not let people CHOOSE from a bunch of competing tax jurisdictions all vying to offer you the best services at the best price? What's wrong with that? Why do you favor removing free will completely, and defend the current system which says that even if you move to Mars, there is no escape, and for the rest of your life you must surrender to uncle sam all the fruits of your labor for him to decide what he'll keep, and he'll throw in jail if you hide anything. What's so offensive about respecting people's free will and giving them choices?


Uh huh. So grocery shopping is now analogous to husband shopping? Especially since marrying someone is a biological need.....like food or water is.

For fucks sake, Frank.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2014, 02:31 PM
RE: The Benefits of the Fair Tax
(14-02-2014 02:17 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(14-02-2014 02:05 PM)wazzel Wrote:  Less taxes would be nice, but it will take a hit to service to make that happen.

Not really. I live in Switzerland, where taxes are cheaper than the US and the services are light years ahead even of Sweden. Nobody is hungry or homeless. Everybody gets all the care they need, everybody can find a good paying job. The roads are immaculate. And they didn't skimp on defense. It is, imo, the best in the world. The bridges and roads have buried explosives if they get invaded, every single building, from a home to an office to a super market, has bomb shelters underneath, they have nuclear-proof shelters buried in the alps so the people can survive an all-out global nuclear war. The government is anal, meticulous and leaves nothing to chance. YET, it does this all on much less tax revenue per capita than the US. Clearly, there's A LOT of room for efficiency improvements in the US.

(14-02-2014 02:05 PM)wazzel Wrote:  I see no reason why the type of tax matters. If you are alloted to pay $30k in taxes a year the government will get $30k in taxes from you.

Really? So, let's say the tax is attached to charity. Every time you do something for somebody, you have to pay a $1,000 tax. Maybe a smile tax. Every time you're happy, there's a tax. Seriously, think through that statement. OF COURSE the type of tax matters because whatever you tax you're discouraging. You don't want to attach the tax to good things that benefit society, like smiling, charity, OR WORKING HARD.

Swiss is not that much cheaper in taxation compared to the US. You are also compareing a country that is the size of a small US state in size and population. Not really a valid comparison to me.

Yes really, it does not matter if they get the money when you earn it or spend it or they sends you a bill for owning property they will get the money. Quit using stupid examples.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes wazzel's post
14-02-2014, 02:46 PM
RE: The Benefits of the Fair Tax
(14-02-2014 02:12 PM)wazzel Wrote:  Someone who understands. High five!

It is also more that the federal level services too. Government at local and state level provides services too. If you shift the service from one to the other it still has to be paid for in some form or fassion. A mile of road cost the same to build no mater what level of government pays for it.

Changine the way the money is collected is a shell game. We get a few small wins to feel like it is good, but the guy holding the shells is the only real winner.

It really wasn't all that complicated what you were saying. I don't know why other people can understand what you are trying to say.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2014, 02:48 PM
RE: The Benefits of the Fair Tax
(14-02-2014 02:31 PM)wazzel Wrote:  
(14-02-2014 02:17 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Not really. I live in Switzerland, where taxes are cheaper than the US and the services are light years ahead even of Sweden. Nobody is hungry or homeless. Everybody gets all the care they need, everybody can find a good paying job. The roads are immaculate. And they didn't skimp on defense. It is, imo, the best in the world. The bridges and roads have buried explosives if they get invaded, every single building, from a home to an office to a super market, has bomb shelters underneath, they have nuclear-proof shelters buried in the alps so the people can survive an all-out global nuclear war. The government is anal, meticulous and leaves nothing to chance. YET, it does this all on much less tax revenue per capita than the US. Clearly, there's A LOT of room for efficiency improvements in the US.


Really? So, let's say the tax is attached to charity. Every time you do something for somebody, you have to pay a $1,000 tax. Maybe a smile tax. Every time you're happy, there's a tax. Seriously, think through that statement. OF COURSE the type of tax matters because whatever you tax you're discouraging. You don't want to attach the tax to good things that benefit society, like smiling, charity, OR WORKING HARD.

Swiss is not that much cheaper in taxation compared to the US. You are also compareing a country that is the size of a small US state in size and population. Not really a valid comparison to me.

Yes really, it does not matter if they get the money when you earn it or spend it or they sends you a bill for owning property they will get the money. Quit using stupid examples.


Stupid examples and non-analgous situations is to Frank as Oxygen is to survival.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Cathym112's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: