Join the Online Tax Revolt

Started by loki, April 05, 2010, 09:54:26 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

loki

http://www.onlinetaxrevolt.com/


I would tell people to read this and join if they agree. I believe that it would be a good thing if this was to come to light.
O&O

Vekseid

Dick Armey, oi.

To me it just comes off as an attempt at disruption.  After eight years of 'deficits don't matter' and then claiming that they matter during a liquidity crisis and deflation. Anyone who says that the flow of money should be slowed down when the flow of money is in fact the fundamental problem does not grasp what money is.

Beyond that, where is the discussion regarding what to cut, or how to reform our tax policy? Few people deny that this needs to be done - but a general protest provides no discussion. It's useless.

loki

Then are you saying that a place where everyone regardless whether or not they are a citizen will pay tax is a bad thing?

Right now, only the people who are citizens pay tax in the USA. That leaves out all the immigrants, illegals and anyone else who comes over here and don't become a citizen. With something like this in place anyone who purchase something will pay. There will be no more bickering about how much money someone makes or why the rich gets more tax breaks than the poor and so on. Everyone will pay, it's a simple concept where if you buy a lot then you will pay a lot and if you don't then you won't pay as much. It also would take out all the bickering about who is and isn't in the USA working and not having to pay taxes.

Another thing to think about would be that the business wouldn't have to pay more taxes. So all the ones that have left the USA to go to cheaper countries would most likely come back. Which would result in more jobs. As for the other small business, like myself, would thrive and the fact that the USA's economy hasn't completely collapsed is because of small business, like me and many others like me out there.

Also if you actually stop and think about it, a tax that everyone has to pay will generate more money for  the government besides of the fact that it would be a "better one" than we have in place. I mean, right now there are only a few compaired to the actual masses that are out there that pay. Reguardless of all the tax breaks and stimulas money that they try to get going, in the end it is just the small people and mom and pop places that seem to keep things going. So why not change things for the better or you could just sit back and complain about what is happening and not bother doing anything to help.
O&O

DarklingAlice

Quote from: Vekseid on April 05, 2010, 10:31:50 PM
Beyond that, where is the discussion regarding what to cut, or how to reform our tax policy? Few people deny that this needs to be done - but a general protest provides no discussion. It's useless.

The people paying for this have already had the discussion, have a plan, and are now just trying to use the internet to dupe a bunch of people into basically signing a petition for a passage of the <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax>Fair Tax Act</a>. The act is a largely absurd (to the point that it is probably unimplementable) plan to tax the rich significantly less, via charging everyone an equal 30% sales tax on all new goods they purchase in lieu of an income tax, funny how they fail to mention that...
For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong.


Schrödinger

#4
Quote from: DarklingAlice on April 06, 2010, 08:29:12 AM
The people paying for this have already had the discussion, have a plan, and are now just trying to use the internet to dupe a bunch of people into basically signing a petition for a passage of the <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax>Fair Tax Act</a>. The act is a largely absurd (to the point that it is probably unimplementable) plan to tax the rich significantly less, via charging everyone an equal 30% sales tax on all new goods they purchase in lieu of an income tax, funny how they fail to mention that...

I never quite got this. What's the exact problem Republicans have with progressive taxation of higher pay scales, anyway? Explain this to a European with a so-so understanding of economics. While I can wholly understand people hating to pay taxes, this is fair taxation of upper income brackets to get more or less the same amount of money from the same population while taxing the lesser incomes less. Why turn this around?

EDIT: VVV So it's a terrible scheme altogether. Gotcha.

    [li]
Schrödinger's O/O[/li]
[li]Plot ideas![/li][/list]

Vekseid

Quote from: loki on April 06, 2010, 08:01:39 AM
Then are you saying that a place where everyone regardless whether or not they are a citizen will pay tax is a bad thing?

Right now, only the people who are citizens pay tax in the USA. That leaves out all the immigrants, illegals and anyone else who comes over here and don't become a citizen.

Everyone pays sales tax who lives in a state corrupt enough to have it. Everyone who owns property pays property tax. Everyone who works while claiming to be a citizen pays into social security and Medicaid/Medicare.

How much did you genuinely pay in income tax this year, compared to the above? I know I pretty much never have.

QuoteWith something like this in place anyone who purchase something will pay. There will be no more bickering about how much money someone makes or why the rich gets more tax breaks than the poor and so on. Everyone will pay, it's a simple concept where if you buy a lot then you will pay a lot and if you don't then you won't pay as much. It also would take out all the bickering about who is and isn't in the USA working and not having to pay taxes.

Are you talking about a national sales tax? A.k.a. "The rich pay no tax, the poor pay a 50% tax, and small businesses die a slow and painful death?"

?

I pay double the sales tax rate. I pay it on a chunk of what I earn (because to my customers, it's still a cost), and I pay it again when I buy goods. A national program would basically force this to propagate across all trades - completely and utterly impossible for some businesses to even exist in such a model, as long chains which were once feasible would be destroyed.

As a fundamental barrier to trade, a sales tax effectively acts as an interperson tariff. It forces savings rather than liquidity - I'd challenge anyone to come up with a more economically destructive form of tax.

Quote from: DarklingAlice on April 06, 2010, 08:29:12 AM
The people paying for this have already had the discussion, have a plan, and are now just trying to use the internet to dupe a bunch of people into basically signing a petition for a passage of the <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax>Fair Tax Act</a>. The act is a largely absurd (to the point that it is probably unimplementable) plan to tax the rich significantly less, via charging everyone an equal 30% sales tax on all new goods they purchase in lieu of an income tax, funny how they fail to mention that...

No one benefits from that tax in the long run. Some rich folk with no clue about economics probably look at this: http://www.itepnet.org/wp2000/text.pdf and dream about what would happen if we did that nationally.

It'd be the collapse of America - the price of your average good would go through the roof and commerce would shut down. But at least the rich wouldn't pay taxes to the United States anymore.

Vekseid

Quote from: Schrödinger on April 06, 2010, 08:33:17 AM
I never quite got this. What's the exact problem Republicans have with progressive taxation of higher pay scales, anyway? Explain this to a European with a so-so understanding of economics. While I can wholly understand people hating to pay taxes, this is fair taxation of upper income brackets to get more or less the same amount of money from the same population while taxing the lesser incomes less. Why turn this around?

EDIT: VVV So it's a terrible scheme altogether. Gotcha.

Businesses would have the option of sourcing their goods and services outside of the United States (thank you NAFTA), paying the tax twice, or not paying the tax on income (since it would be self reported). It's like the secret plot of a foreign power to destroy America, or something. It's fundamentally horrible.

Ket

Quote from: loki on April 06, 2010, 08:01:39 AM
Then are you saying that a place where everyone regardless whether or not they are a citizen will pay tax is a bad thing?

Right now, only the people who are citizens pay tax in the USA. That leaves out all the immigrants, illegals and anyone else who comes over here and don't become a citizen.

This is not totally true. Many immigrants who are not yet full citizens but who do have work visas pay taxes. Many pay double the tax rate of the average worker because they are basically considered self-employed or contract employees, as they receive 1099's instead of W-2s. As for illegals - of course they avoid paying income taxes. One, you can't even file without a social security number or employee identification number. Attempting to attain either one would force them to make public their illegal status and risk deportation.

US Tax Code is by far from simple, and even a seasoned professional tax preparer/accountant is constantly learning as the code is ever changing. People always say "Oh, the rich pay less taxes."  No, they don't. They pay their share. Think about when you've done your taxes in the past.  Was that final amount actually that much?  I know for myself, filing single with no itemized deductions and my only credits coming from retirement account savings, I pay a mere fraction of my income.

During my years as a tax preparer I saw people from all income ranges, with all sorts of income, deductions and credits. Let me tell you about the working 'poor'. They rarely, if ever, pay taxes. Their income is so low that their personal deductions plus the standard deduction takes their adjusted gross income down to zero. Which means any and all monies they have paid into the system are refunded to them. Not only that, but those with children are offered additional credits in the form of Earned Income Credit, Child Tax Credit and Additional Child Tax credit. Which can amount to several thousand dollars in a refund, of monies that they didn't pay in (technically money coming from the pocket of the 'rich'). This doesn't account for the self-employed. That is a whole different ball game. I'm talking about those that work one or two minimum wage jobs.

When it comes to the 'rich', many of their deductions and credits are limited to certain amounts. Many people who make over a certain amount a year are forced to pay at the highest tax rate without deductions on those income overages. In all ways, the 'rich' do pay more taxes. Income, sales, property. They typically buy higher prices items which results in more sales tax. They own property worth more money, which results in higher property taxes.

I have no issues with paying income tax, federal or state. These are the monies that provide me with luxuries I enjoy every day such as city parks, roads, interstates, national parks.  They provide our federal, state and local police, fire and emergency personnel. They pay for our standing army and navy. For all that, I don't mind paying around $1,000 a year in income taxes. To me, that's a pretty good deal.
she wears strength and darkness equally well, the girl has always been half goddess, half hell

you can find me on discord Ket#8117
Ons & Offs~Menagerie~Pulse~Den of Iniquity
wee little Ketlings don't yet have the ability to spit forth flame with the ferocity needed to vanquish a horde of vehicular bound tiny arachnids.

RubySlippers

The government could do a great deal first to keep decent jobs here or return them its called a TARIFF. See lets say Nike an American company makes a pair of shoes in China why not ,oh, slap on $50 a pair if they are imported and not if made in the US. Same for outsourcing services to India penalize the company for the lost work high enough to make sure having their services done here makes it cost effective. Taxing is well within the nations power. Same for other goods if ACME Widgets Company wants to import them slap on a Tariff and if they make them here no Tariff. Tada ... more jobs and money to get taxes from here or more taxes from imports its win win. I never liked free trade as that free its fine with peer nations where salaries and the like are mostly equal and the other nation offers something we can't make here. But unfettred borders and imports.exports forget it.

As for current taxes people want a Nanny State then pay for it, I for one don't want to reduce taxes but they should be raised say 2-10% based on their tax bracket the richest should pay 50% it won't kill them. And provide for all that is needed to live for all Americans. I never understood why Socialism is bad its a simple philosophy and seems to work you make sure everyone gets taken care of and tax sufficient to spread the wealth to make this happen. I would love a nation as stable and provides for all like some EU nations. In fact Jesus was a Socialist so as a Christian it can be seen as the most Christian form of government.

loki

Quote from: Vekseid on April 06, 2010, 08:41:26 AM
Everyone pays sales tax who lives in a state corrupt enough to have it. Everyone who owns property pays property tax. Everyone who works while claiming to be a citizen pays into social security and Medicaid/Medicare.

How much did you genuinely pay in income tax this year, compared to the above? I know I pretty much never have.

Are you talking about a national sales tax? A.k.a. "The rich pay no tax, the poor pay a 50% tax, and small businesses die a slow and painful death?"

Actually I live in a state that I have to pay sales tax and I also pay property taxes, as for the other two I am self employed and I pay every year. Roughly I have to pay around three thousand a year each year in income taxes and sadly I am below the poverty line. But if you think it's corrupt to live in a state that makes you pay taxes with everything that you buy, then I'm a bit confused because it isn't just me that has to pay. Everyone that comes through our fair state and decides to buy something gets to pay that same tax. No questions asked, no I have money so I shouldn't have to pay or no exceptions to the rules. I don't see that tax as a bad thing since it pays for the roads, the parks and much much more.

Also I am not sure where you are getting that the rich doesn't have to pay and the poor pay more. The tax is for everyone, rich or poor. It is the same. If you want something and buy it you get the tax, if you don't want to pay the tax then don't buy anything. Plus the small business won't die a slow painful death if they have money in their pockets and people buying their goods.

Ken Hoagland on Fox News' "Huckabee" - April 3, 2010

This should explain more, but most seem to think that the rich doesn't get taxed when they do. They just make more money and have a heck of a lot more taxes on them now that it looks like that they would pay nothing. But in truth of it is that the ones with the money buy the most stuff. The rich, the illegals, heck even the drug dealers would have to pay the tax if they bought things and I can tell you that most of those people love buying things.

Also with that type of tax in place there would be no tax evasion. No one cheating on their taxes. No one would be able to pull a stunt like Wesley Snips did by saying that he wasn't a citizen and running with his money. The taxes would be paid up front, no chasing anyone down or trying to collect anything. It sounds like a damn good fix to me since about 20% of Americans really pay their taxes, the rest fall through the cracks in one way or another.


Besides this quote is something that I truly believe in ....   "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and provide new Guards for their future security."
O&O

Serephino

Sure, this would give people more money in their paychecks, but it would make everything cost a lot more.  Would manufacturers have to pay the tax on the materials they need?  If that's the case, then they would have to up their prices to continue to make a profit, then add the tax the buyer pays on top of that.  Would anyone be able to afford anything anymore?  And what about food?  We all have to buy that, which is why it isn't currently taxed in most states. 

My boyfriend makes a little above minimum wage, so really, he wouldn't be getting that much more.  I'm disabled, so my income wouldn't change.  Right now we can't afford to pay attention.  If you tax food which we have no choice but to buy, that would really screw us over.  It would be even worse when buying a car or an appliance.  We need a car to get around, and ours is dying.  Our washing machine is only working right now because of duct tape and a popsicle stick.  Our microwave can't melt butter.  All these things need replaced, and paying an extra national income tax will only make it harder for us to do so. 

I like the idea of taxing outsourcing and imports.  It really pisses me off that perfectly good jobs are being sent to India and China because they'll work for less.  We obviously need those jobs here.   

Trieste

*rubs temples* My god, it's like the "ten guys in a restaurant" all over again.

Okay, try to stay with me. Poor people don't pay into the system. They get benefits from the system. Whether it's via tax credits or simply not having to pay taxes while taking the city bus, the poor benefit from the tax system.

The rich people pay taxes, and they pay lots of them. Even if they stayed in the same percentage as the poor people, they would pay more money. As it stands, they are actually taxed at a higher percentage. So they pay lots. If they get a tax break, it's only enough to make them pay less into the system, and it's not nearly enough to offset the amount they pay in. The reason you don't get a 5% tax break like Bill Gates or whoever is because you aren't in a tax bracket that expects you to pay 25% of your income into taxes (hypothetically; I don't know the actual percentages). So Bill Gates pays 20% of his income into the system instead of 25%, Mary Jane Poverty Line pays 2% of her income into the system instead of, uh, 2%, and still gets the benefit of public servants and services. Mary Jane Poverty Line is not getting a tax break. Mary Jane Poverty Line doesn't NEED a tax break to convince her not to take her 900,000 per year salary to live happily in Mexico or something (because, in my hypothetical world, Mexico doesn't tax the wealthy). Mary Jane Poverty Line just needs to make sure she's got enough to feed her family - and because Bill Gates pays 20-fuckin'-%, she can go get food stamps if she really needs to feed herself or her kids. Not to be offensive, because there is nothing wrong with food stamps or other social subsistence programs, but do you really think they'd be funded as well as they are if the rich paid no taxes?

I personally pay in very few taxes myself, and I'm in line to get tax credits for being a student - which will probably go directly toward my education as well. Which is the point. Does the tax system need reform? Of course it does, and that is why it's always changing as mentioned above. But the current system is not as horrible as it's made out to be, and if I, with my hatred of all things mathlike, can understand it and follow what's up, I really have a hard time understanding why so many people can't seem to keep up...

Callie Del Noire

Here's another example.

My brother and his wife were a dual income family as he finished the bar and started working for a firm where he lives. He made points with the senior partners, got a cut of a VERY large pie and in one year went up SEVERAL TAX brackets. (as well as paying off his student loan, his wifes, their house and setting two trust funds for their kids with a very large number of zeroes)

In that year he went from paying taxes at the level my parents to the gross SALARY of my sister-in-law the year before (which is nearly six figures at the time).

He explained why and pretty much all the reasons Trieste mentioned are part of them.

Vekseid

Quote from: loki on April 06, 2010, 09:15:06 PM
Actually I live in a state that I have to pay sales tax and I also pay property taxes, as for the other two I am self employed and I pay every year. Roughly I have to pay around three thousand a year each year in income taxes and sadly I am below the poverty line. But if you think it's corrupt to live in a state that makes you pay taxes with everything that you buy, then I'm a bit confused because it isn't just me that has to pay. Everyone that comes through our fair state and decides to buy something gets to pay that same tax. No questions asked, no I have money so I shouldn't have to pay or no exceptions to the rules. I don't see that tax as a bad thing since it pays for the roads, the parks and much much more.

Are you not deducting your business expenses or something? Yes, I know it's hard being self employed, but if you are below the poverty line
http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/09poverty.shtml
http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

To even owe $3k with the standard deductible you need to be making some $30k per year after all deductible business expenses. Not even counting any credits or deductions for dependents. So either you have a lot of children, or you're not doing your taxes remotely properly.

Yes, lots of aid programs are calculated from how much you earn in total - that's the crimp self employed face - but taxes should not be your problem if you are below poverty. At all.

Quote
Also I am not sure where you are getting that the rich doesn't have to pay and the poor pay more. The tax is for everyone, rich or poor. It is the same. If you want something and buy it you get the tax, if you don't want to pay the tax then don't buy anything. Plus the small business won't die a slow painful death if they have money in their pockets and people buying their goods.

People who buy their goods from Canada or Mexico instead, how much will they pay in taxes?

At 30%, it becomes cheaper for me to host in Canada. It is no longer cheaper for a Canadian to host in the United States, however, so they will also move their hosting elsewhere. You are advocating a 30% tariff on our exports. There are no words for how mindbogglingly stupid that is.

I know how the 'Fair tax' (a lie) works.

Quote
This should explain more, but most seem to think that the rich doesn't get taxed when they do. They just make more money and have a heck of a lot more taxes on them now that it looks like that they would pay nothing. But in truth of it is that the ones with the money buy the most stuff. The rich, the illegals, heck even the drug dealers would have to pay the tax if they bought things and I can tell you that most of those people love buying things.

When we refer to the rich paying nothing, we generally talk about things like Exxon Mobile's tax havens - companies that invest overseas and write them off for deductions here.

Above and beyond that though, the rich don't buy goods - they invest and build wealth. And get many of their goods for free. See the pdf I linked.

Quote
Also with that type of tax in place there would be no tax evasion. No one cheating on their taxes. No one would be able to pull a stunt like Wesley Snips did by saying that he wasn't a citizen and running with his money. The taxes would be paid up front, no chasing anyone down or trying to collect anything. It sounds like a damn good fix to me since about 20% of Americans really pay their taxes, the rest fall through the cracks in one way or another.

You are self employed, you know that your sales taxes are self reported, first and foremost. All I need to do to legally avoid the tax is buy from Canada instead. Or Mexico, but I live in Minnesota.

Worse, it additionally becomes a tax on all exports (or else there's a rather slick loophole).

The Fair Tax act is horribly, mind-bogglingly stupid. I hate income tax as much as most everyone - I'm a firm believer in property tax and tariffs for such things - but the fair tax act is economic suicide in a nutshell.

Asuras

Quote from: Vekseid
At 30%, it becomes cheaper for me to host in Canada. It is no longer cheaper for a Canadian to host in the United States, however, so they will also move their hosting elsewhere. You are advocating a 30% tariff on our exports. There are no words for how mindbogglingly stupid that is.

Wouldn't the pre-tax price fall because of that, something like:

With income tax: $100 purchase price, $30 to government (income tax withholding), $70 after-tax income to employees/shareholders
With sales tax: $70 purchase price, $30 sales tax, $70 to employees/shareholders

loki

All I'm promoting is for the people sign up for the tax revolt to start a change in the tax system. There are at least three different groups that planned this with three different plans. The fair tax is only one of them. But they are all working for change and they will work out something to change into, however if people don't start taking a stand and sign up then nothing will ever change.


Veks: I actually make 1300 a year and my CPA is very good at her job. But what you may have forgotten that there are taxes in a employees check that are half taken care of for them. I have to pay the full amount because I am self employed. I am not below the line to where I don't have to pay taxes but I am below the 2500 mark that make me a poverty person. I have no children and am single so I only take care of myself without help from a spouse or anyone else. As for my expenses, well being a dog groomer for ten years you seem to have all you personal equipment already bought and don't really need much besides some regular sharpening that doesn't come close to making the cut off for expenses. Though I still put them in there.

But I do have to wonder if you employ anyone or if you are self employed to know how to try and get around the tax laws. Because I don't want to be audited for anything. Plus I am just wondering if you had actually read the book about the fair tax laws and how everything would work under just that one act.


Sparkling Angle: Actually your income would change due to the fact that it would be his gross income not the one after everything is taken out. So you would make more money. Plus if more good jobs come back into the USA then there would be a high likelyhood that he would be able to get an even better job that would pay more money. As for your income, if they take any taxes out of it then even you would bring in more money as well.






*and no I don't really care about how much money I do or don't make. I love my job and am very very very happy with it,but things need to change and I would like to see change happen*
O&O

Jude

Quote from: loki on April 07, 2010, 12:07:40 AM
All I'm promoting is for the people sign up for the tax revolt to start a change in the tax system. There are at least three different groups that planned this with three different plans. The fair tax is only one of them. But they are all working for change and they will work out something to change into, however if people don't start taking a stand and sign up then nothing will ever change.
There isn't a single Democrat listed on their "leaders" page, but there is a ridiculous amount of Republicans.  If you're trying to bill this as non-partisan, you're being extremely dishonest.

Vekseid

Quote from: Asuras on April 06, 2010, 11:51:48 PM
Wouldn't the pre-tax price fall because of that, something like:

With income tax: $100 purchase price, $30 to government (income tax withholding), $70 after-tax income to employees/shareholders
With sales tax: $70 purchase price, $30 sales tax, $70 to employees/shareholders

No.

My hosting provider would pay the additional 30% directly to all of their suppliers, who pay the additional 30% to all of theirs - on up the chain until someone leaves the country. Then I pay 30% on top of that. Any exemption you make for this becomes a loophole

The thing about income tax is it's ideally charged once on the sum total of all transactions over the course of the year. I make a purchase, someone else makes a purchase with the money I gave them for the original purchase - a dollar is circulated dozens of times over the course of the year. This multiplier is a critical factor in the strength of our economy - the slower money circulates, the more people suffer.

Now, the response is pretty straightforward - the 30% tax would rapidly drop to 15% say (including the state portion). But it's still massive, and would utterly destroy numerous industries that depend on extended chains (and disrupt innovation based on them), while at the same time propping up gray markets based on imports from Canada or Mexico.

I really wonder what upstanding economists support this mess.

loki

Quote from: Jude on April 07, 2010, 12:49:55 AM
There isn't a single Democrat listed on their "leaders" page, but there is a ridiculous amount of Republicans.  If you're trying to bill this as non-partisan, you're being extremely dishonest.

I never said anything of the sort. As for all the names being republic, well as I said before they are pushing to get this whole thing into the  mix so both sides can work out a deal to make it a bill. It isn't just about the fair act proposal, it actually has many groups with different ways to fix the taxes coming together and trying to get it started. Unless you all want to just sit by and just complain about how bad the taxes are then I guess nothing will ever come to change. Sad, because it is change that people live on all the time.
O&O

Jude

Quote from: loki on April 07, 2010, 06:30:24 PM
I never said anything of the sort. As for all the names being republic, well as I said before they are pushing to get this whole thing into the  mix so both sides can work out a deal to make it a bill. It isn't just about the fair act proposal, it actually has many groups with different ways to fix the taxes coming together and trying to get it started.
The roster is overwhelmingly Republican and they're the only party on the roster with actual political power.  If this idea takes off, who's sails do you think the wind is going to be blowing into?  It may as well be a Republican anti-tax rally.  It's true you never said it was non-partisan, but you've been trying to make it sound as if this event is a gathering point for anyone who wants the tax code to change.  That's not really the case.  This event is a focal point for anyone who wants the tax codes to become more conservative.  No other outcome will result from this.
Quote from: loki on April 07, 2010, 06:30:24 PMUnless you all want to just sit by and just complain about how bad the taxes are then I guess nothing will ever come to change. Sad, because it is change that people live on all the time.
Showing up to this rally because you want a more progressive tax system, to close the loopholes, or just to make the tax code simpler would be stupid.  Unless you want to add political clout to the opinion of the majority of protesters (which is your prerogative to do if you so choose), you're better off rallying under a different banner.

Personally I'd like a lot of tax deductions removed and much of the tax code reworked.  I don't think paying offering at church on Sunday should count for charity nor do I think people should get special tax brackets simply for being married.  Giving families and people with dependents a break makes absolute sense to me, but you can do that without rewarding straight couples for tying the knot (which I don't think the government should be in the business of).  And I'd be OK with the tax code including writing off expenditures which lead to an improvement in health (gym expenses and such)--maybe even giving people a small deduction for losing weight (since this would affect our healthcare system positively).  But I don't want the government to be in the business of encouraging a certain lifestyle unless that lifestyle is absolutely necessary for the perpetuation and health of our society.

If I was to show up at this event, do you think any of the pro-family conservatives would be for removing the marriage tax bracket, religious donations counting as charity, etc.?

This is a conservative tax revolt, and calling it anything else is misleading.

Asuras

Quote from: Vekseid
My hosting provider would pay the additional 30% directly to all of their suppliers, who pay the additional 30% to all of theirs - on up the chain until someone leaves the country. Then I pay 30% on top of that. Any exemption you make for this becomes a loophole

This would be the scenario if, for some wacky reason, all businesses refused to cut their prices in short order:

- US hosts competing with Canadian hosts become 30% more expensive over night
- US hosts cut prices 30% to compete with Canadian hosts, even if it means running at a loss for a while, because the alternative is to go out of business.
- US hosts start demanding much cheaper supplies so that they can remain profitable.
- US suppliers cut prices because US hosts strongly demand cheaper products, because the alternative for them is also to go out of business.
- And on up the chain...

And actually none of that would happen because everyone would read the writing on the wall that they have to cut prices by 30% the day that the tax comes into effect.

And foreigners actually do pay our income taxes indirectly - US exporters have to charge more for goods because their employees demand more to make up for the income taxes that get withheld from their paychecks. Same with property taxes - landlords pass on the property taxes on to renters through higher rents, even though renters (and importers) don't pay these taxes directly. Even corporate income taxes and capital gains taxes are passed on like this. This is why (at this level) it doesn't matter whether you have sales taxes or income taxes - they all get passed on to the consumer eventually.

Vekseid

Quote from: Asuras on April 07, 2010, 10:06:07 PM
This would be the scenario if, for some wacky reason, all businesses refused to cut their prices in short order:

- US hosts competing with Canadian hosts become 30% more expensive over night
- US hosts cut prices 30% to compete with Canadian hosts, even if it means running at a loss for a while, because the alternative is to go out of business.

And some will go out of business, because hosting is rather slim margins, especially starting up.

Quote
- US hosts start demanding much cheaper supplies so that they can remain profitable.
- US suppliers cut prices because US hosts strongly demand cheaper products, because the alternative for them is also to go out of business.
- And on up the chain...

Well, let's look at the suppliers.

Ideally, a host is either renting DC space or owns their own. Hosts owning their own DC would have an immediate advantage in that they would no longer be paying property taxes. Large companies will like that. Small to midsized hosts won't, of course.

The host's DC (whether their own or rented) needs to provide power, supplied by the local monopoly. Something will need to specifically happen in order to guarantee a price reduction in power costs.

They'll also maintain fuel reserves for backup generators, which are diesel, the price of this is no longer driven by American demand. This is a price guaranteed to go up. Futures markets will probably ensure a smooth transition, but the price of diesel will still be ~30% higher.

They need to maintain peering agreements, which have the same limitations in regards to the market value of power commodities. The peering structure already favors megacorps, so that may be a moot point.

Labor costs are assumed to be able to be cut by 30% de facto.

Hardware, though, is largely commodity based for anything produced in the United States (things such as processors and other high-value items the US produces in the tech arena are often reimported through the gray market). Prices would not increase, since you could just source everything from Canada or Mexico. But the willful encouragement of a bad trend is certainly not a good thing.

Quote
And actually none of that would happen because everyone would read the writing on the wall that they have to cut prices by 30% the day that the tax comes into effect.

You misunderstood three quarters of my point.

When I pay income tax, now, it's once for the sum total of all transactions my business does over the course of a year. Income comes after taking expenses into account. This means that businesses with more vertical integration by definition have an edge, and businesses that handle fewer, higher margin transactions will have an easier time over businesses that handle many small margin (fast moving) transactions. Businesses with no vertical integration (IE, most startups) will have another hurdle to jump. Businesses that need to generate a lot of transactions daily - or even hourly - to sustain operations are also at risk, because they end up paying more taxes than their brethren, even if they start losing money.

For example, going back to the hosting scenario again.

One (rather ridiculous - though I've seen it) possibility to enter into is having a person by a hosting account from an account reseller, who bought the reseller account from a VPS owner, who rents the machine from a guy who bought a server from a server reseller, who bought the machines from the upstream host, who rents their datacenter space.

You might argue that that sort of insanity ought not to be reasonable and I would agree, I'm just illustrating that this gives a lot more power to vertically integrated businesses, as they aren't transactions in these cases, just, at best, differing levels of service.

The final portion you are missing:

If I do not make money, I do not pay income tax.

If I do not make money, I still have to somehow pay my self-reported sales tax.

No one will honestly tell you that tax evasion is not going to occur in this case. This isn't going to be any less disruptive - what will the policy be when a business is incapable of paying its tax obligation? In the US as is, that's not a common occurrence. But under this policy, it's going to be a concern for every single bankruptcy.

Callie Del Noire

Just look at the mess NAFTA did to us.

It KILLED the textile industry in the US. PERIOD. (One current Sec of State once said only 'Low paying blue collar' jobs would be lost).

Making it cost effective to outsource production has only made profits for the companies while screwing our production base.  My folks grew up in Kannapolis NC, when I was growing up the mills only stopped working for Christmas and New Years, every other time it was at least SOME spinning being done. It was though them that my dad paid for college, ditto my old brother, and several other relatives. Before the NAFTA-lypse, they were making a good living wage for that area of the state. Hell, the mills ran at least 2 shift days a week even during the worse parts of the depression.

Suddenly it was cheaper to do the work in mexico (or running production even further south and shipping it to Mexican companies. Hell the company sold the equipment off to the mexican companies after the mills were forced to shut down.

The mind BOGGLES at what would happen to what little textile production we have left if you tack a 30% sales tax on each step of the sale of materials.

DarklingAlice

Quote from: Vekseid on April 07, 2010, 11:28:51 PM
The final portion you are missing:

If I do not make money, I do not pay income tax.

If I do not make money, I still have to somehow pay my self-reported sales tax.

This! This alone should show how absurd Fair Tax is. Hell, even if you make money up to a certain point you still don't pay income tax (although you will pay a 7.5% medicare/social security, which becomes 15.3% for the self-employed because they pay both the employers and employees sides; however, that 7.5% or 15.3% still scales with your profits).

As an extension of this you get the vastly unfair situation where now the poor are being taxed an absurd percentage of their income and the rich are being taxed almost nothing. To whit: We bought a  car this year. That car cost ~$15,000. Under FairTax we would pay taxes on that car ~$4,500 (which would be deceptively included in the car price). This is ~12% of our income. Let's say someone right at the poverty line bought that same car after much saving, they would be taxed the same amount, which is to say ~40% of their income. Now let's say someone who makes $100,000 a year buys said car and their tax becomes ~4.5% of their income. And the more money you make the smaller a percentage you pay until you in essence have no substantial portion of your income taxed. Its disgusting.

And Loki, if this is as much of a multi-group issue as you say why are the words: "Paid for by Americans for Fair Taxation" printed right at the bottom of the page? And why does the big banner at their website www.fairtax.org read: "FAIRTAX SPONSERS ONLINE TAX REVOLT". Where are the other names, other plans, etc? FairTax is not footing the bill out of some democratic idealism to open a forum for discussion they are doing this because they think they will directly benefit.
For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong.


Vekseid

The Fairtax system includes a 'prebate' for needed goods and services. With that, it genuinely reduces the burden on the poorest (those earning under $25k per year) - from a small negative portion to something like -6%. It actually encourages the welfare state more than the current system does. I get $9k per year so long as I have a valid SS#, no questions asked.

Those making over $200k per year also save. Everyone else will be paying more.