You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 07, 2016, 12:24:07 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Join the Online Tax Revolt  (Read 5852 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Asuras

Re: Join the Online Tax Revolt
« Reply #25 on: April 08, 2010, 01:45:32 AM »
Quote from: Vekseid
And some will go out of business, because hosting is rather slim margins, especially starting up.

Presumably adjustment issues could be minimized by implementing the sales tax gradually.

Quote from: Vekseid
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.

Landlords pass property taxes on to renters through higher rents. Everyone effectively pays property taxes, so this really doesn't have distributional implications.

Quote from: Vekseid
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.

All of the people who would end up paying 30% more for power (i.e., everyone) would adamantly lobby for that. It also wouldn't be an issue in places with deregulated utilities (i.e., Texas...although not New York).

Quote from: Vekseid
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.

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.

The impact on imports is a significant difference from the current tax regime.

Quote from: Vekseid

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.

What kind of tax was that? The FairTax is only supposed to be paid at the final point of sale.

Quote from: Vekseid

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.

Which is why God said, "Let There Be Alternatives To Sole Proprietorships."

Quote from: Vekseid
No one will honestly tell you that tax evasion is not going to occur in this case.

Whereas income taxes are a monument to transparency...

Quote from: Vekseid
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.

Businesses have ridiculous amounts of wacky tax obligations as it is - which bankruptcy courts do regularly sift through - what makes this different?

Online Vekseid

Re: Join the Online Tax Revolt
« Reply #26 on: April 08, 2010, 02:40:33 AM »
Presumably adjustment issues could be minimized by implementing the sales tax gradually.

Which at least would  point out the nonpayment issues early. It still doesn't address the overpayment issues small businesses face.

Quote
Landlords pass property taxes on to renters through higher rents. Everyone effectively pays property taxes, so this really doesn't have distributional implications.

Property taxes are frequently small compared to the loans held. There might be a small reduction in price as property taxes and insurance adjustments get handled through escrow but it will not be 30% across the board.

Quote
All of the people who would end up paying 30% more for power (i.e., everyone) would adamantly lobby for that. It also wouldn't be an issue in places with deregulated utilities (i.e., Texas...although not New York).

Why would deregulation help? This is the same industry that gave birth to the California crisis, for crying out loud.

Quote
What kind of tax was that? The FairTax is only supposed to be paid at the final point of sale.

I don't even need to leave the hosting example here: So I can get out of $100/month of tax by reselling space on each of my servers?

Quote
Which is why God said, "Let There Be Alternatives To Sole Proprietorships."

What does incorporating improve, here?

The IRS expects new businesses to operate at a loss. It actively gives you a leg up. That's not the case here - new business costs and revenue are taxed under FairTax whether you sink or sink.

Quote
Whereas income taxes are a monument to transparency...

Which is why they're withheld.

I'm still waiting to hear why this system would beat replacing all taxes with property taxes.

Quote
Businesses have ridiculous amounts of wacky tax obligations as it is - which bankruptcy courts do regularly sift through - what makes this different?

Magnitude.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: Join the Online Tax Revolt
« Reply #27 on: April 08, 2010, 10:55:21 AM »
Name one good thing (for the consumer) that came of deregulation.

-They deregulated the Airlines and it turned to utter crap.
-I was in California when they deregulated the Power industry out there. I got to see businesses go under because they couldn't pay power bills (which EXPLODED over a very short time). I know of at least a dozen families who had to move back onto Navy housing because they couldn't afford to pay the power bills.
-How much of the current mortgage stupidity came from the lessening of regulations?

Oh yeah, deregulation is just the way to go.

If you're an exec looking for ways to inflate your bottom line without doing anything new.

Offline lokiTopic starter

Re: Join the Online Tax Revolt
« Reply #28 on: April 08, 2010, 08:18:27 PM »
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.


Tell me what does it really matter who started or is trying to start the ball rolling on this project? If it was done by democrats then would you do okay with it going to congress and being worked out there? The fact of the matter is that republicans are trying to start the ball rolling, however it will take BOTH parties or approve the final bill and put it into law. I mean, the health care was done that way and was rammed through by the democrats, and personally I didn't want it and I am a democrat because I am the working public. But I have found that through the years that if you see someone better to run or do things than your own party then you chose them. So I am having a big problem with caring who started this push for change since it takes both parties to mostly agree to get it anyhere. Plus in the link that I posted before, he gives the names of a few other groups in his interview.


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).

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.


Well first off, if the drop all taxes on business and not make them pay taxes on their employees then there would be a ton of companies that would come back to the states. It would be cheaper for them to do business here then elsewhere. As it stands right now the companies that buy stuff to sell to the public are tax exempt and only the public pays tax on the items that they buy. However, they do have to pay taxes on things that they aren't selling to the public and using for themselves. It wouldn't change much except for how much the people pay and how much they have to pay for their own personal use. So they would actually make money due to the fact that they don't have to pay taxes on their business or taxes on their employees.



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.

Well actually, it would take out all the taxes on marriage and take out all the brackets. If there is no IRS then there is not taxes on people and their marriages. Plus once again, the fair tax isn't the only tax plan out there, if you really look into it you would find out that there is also the flat tax and the regan tax plans, though I'm not sure of the name of the last one I know that there are a few more different plans that are being put together. As for what other ones there are, I am not sure of their details so I can not say. But things can and will change one way or another.







Once again, there is more than one plan behind this push.

Offline Jude

Re: Join the Online Tax Revolt
« Reply #29 on: April 09, 2010, 12:05:37 AM »
Tell me what does it really matter who started or is trying to start the ball rolling on this project? If it was done by democrats then would you do okay with it going to congress and being worked out there? The fact of the matter is that republicans are trying to start the ball rolling, however it will take BOTH parties or approve the final bill and put it into law. I mean, the health care was done that way and was rammed through by the democrats, and personally I didn't want it and I am a democrat because I am the working public. But I have found that through the years that if you see someone better to run or do things than your own party then you chose them. So I am having a big problem with caring who started this push for change since it takes both parties to mostly agree to get it anyhere. Plus in the link that I posted before, he gives the names of a few other groups in his interview.
Pushed through...over the course of a year.  Gee, that must've been a really tight hole the Dems shoved their Health Care Package into (I couldn't resist).  By the way, you're not a Democrat if you buy into Republican ideas in practice (as far as we can tell) and believe Republican Propaganda/Rhetoric.  The working public is not entirely Democratic, so I'm not really sure what sort of logical relationship you're claiming there.

But to answer your point, I don't care who's sponsoring the idea of tax reform, I'd only back them if I agree with the particular version that is being pushed by the people in charge.
Well first off, if the drop all taxes on business and not make them pay taxes on their employees then there would be a ton of companies that would come back to the states. It would be cheaper for them to do business here then elsewhere. As it stands right now the companies that buy stuff to sell to the public are tax exempt and only the public pays tax on the items that they buy. However, they do have to pay taxes on things that they aren't selling to the public and using for themselves. It wouldn't change much except for how much the people pay and how much they have to pay for their own personal use. So they would actually make money due to the fact that they don't have to pay taxes on their business or taxes on their employees.
Even if you dropped all taxes on business, hell lets just get rid of taxes entirely and let the government pay for services with monopoly money and assume somehow this works, the businesses STILL aren't coming back.  They went overseas because production is so much cheaper over there because manpower is cheaper.  Lower standard of living means that you can pay people lower wages and get the same work (if not more) out of them.  If you want to make America competitive again, you'd need to gut employment regulation, get rid of unions, and finally cut the wages of workers throughout the country across the board.  For as much as populists like to claim, jobs aren't exported to India because of taxes, they're exported there because labor is cheaper.  Indians are both willing to work for less money and can work for less money (because things are cheaper there).

Sure, we could tax the crap out of companies that use oversea labor or charge them ridiculous amounts to import it, but that's going to mean rising prices on goods and services throughout the country as industry switches over to using American Workers who get paid a lot more than what they're used to.  We'll get some industries back, but end up paying more for everything that's made here, so we'll have more jobs, but the dollar will buy us a lot less, and everyone's standard of living will go down.  Getting manufacturing jobs back here will raise the price of manufactured goods and services, there's no two ways about it.

The solution is obvious, high-tech industry and a college educated workforce.  The third world will always do a better job of unskilled/uneducated labor, this is just a new reality that needs to accepted in lieu of reminiscing about the past when your dad supported your entire family working in the automobile plant for GM straight out of high school.  That America is gone, the global economy killed it.
Well actually, it would take out all the taxes on marriage and take out all the brackets. If there is no IRS then there is not taxes on people and their marriages. Plus once again, the fair tax isn't the only tax plan out there, if you really look into it you would find out that there is also the flat tax and the regan tax plans, though I'm not sure of the name of the last one I know that there are a few more different plans that are being put together. As for what other ones there are, I am not sure of their details so I can not say. But things can and will change one way or another.







Once again, there is more than one plan behind this push.
But the largest plan will win out.  It's the voice of the leaders and majority that will be heard.

You're right that a 30% sales tax would cut away the marriage things I don't agree with, but it would also eliminate the idea of a dependent.  Parents would pay more taxes simply for having children (by needing to purchase things for them) instead of getting assistance for perpetuating our society.  And that's just one example of the things that hatchet-job would do.  All the other legitimate incentives would vanish as well.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2010, 12:09:04 AM by Jude »

Online Vekseid

Re: Join the Online Tax Revolt
« Reply #30 on: April 09, 2010, 09:36:08 AM »
The reason businesses went overseas is it's a method of tax evasion. The thing is - that same method and reasons for that tax evasion still work under Fairtax. You have a 30% tariff on all US made goods, and a legal 0% tariff on Canadian and Mexican goods.


Offline RubySlippers

Re: Join the Online Tax Revolt
« Reply #31 on: April 10, 2010, 04:16:53 PM »
Its simple bring back Tariffs you know you import some good or service you pay a fat tax on it, I would do this only on companies that sent their factories overseas and enough to encourage them to bring them back. It might help making say Nike pay a $100 tariff on each pair of shoes or return that production to the United States.

Offline Jude

Re: Join the Online Tax Revolt
« Reply #32 on: April 10, 2010, 06:38:33 PM »
Its simple bring back Tariffs you know you import some good or service you pay a fat tax on it, I would do this only on companies that sent their factories overseas and enough to encourage them to bring them back. It might help making say Nike pay a $100 tariff on each pair of shoes or return that production to the United States.
You'd have to get the U.S. out of every fair trade agreement it's signed in the past 20 years.

Sure we'd get jobs, but it would cost more to buy everything.

How do you think other countries will react?  They'll put tariffs on our goods as well.  Severing the ties of the Global Economy is not progress.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2010, 06:40:15 PM by Jude »

Offline lokiTopic starter

Re: Join the Online Tax Revolt
« Reply #33 on: April 10, 2010, 11:12:37 PM »
Pushed through...over the course of a year.  Gee, that must've been a really tight hole the Dems shoved their Health Care Package into.

Well at least it took a year *rollseyes* but it should of and most other things do take a lot longer to get through the process, without having to have other things put in after it was pushed through to make it workable. Right now there is a stack of papers with different ideas sitting on a desk collecting dust while most of the people are complaining about tax reform. One of the ideas is the Fair Tax idea, but once again it isn't the only idea there. Also even if say they did use the Fair tax idea as a base to start from. When have you ever seen an idea that was presented to congress, the house of representatives or even the president look the exact way that it was turned in when it was signed into action? They will take the fair tax idea and pick and choose what they will keep and what they will get rid of, adding and taking away things that won't work. Heck, they could even decide to not even us the fair tax idea at all and go with another plan for their base idea. The point is that those papers are sitting there doing nothing and there are people out there that want change and want things to start now. That is what they are really pushing for, for things to stop sitting on the back burner and get moving in the right direction. How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time, well this is the first bite. Several groups including the Fair Tax Campaign, Tea Party Express, Americans for Tax Reform and FreedomWorks are banding together physically and digitally to urge Congress to overhaul the tax code.

Even if you dropped all taxes on business, hell lets just get rid of taxes entirely and let the government pay for services with monopoly money and assume somehow this works, the businesses STILL aren't coming back.  They went overseas because production is so much cheaper over there because manpower is cheaper.  Lower standard of living means that you can pay people lower wages and get the same work (if not more) out of them.  If you want to make America competitive again, you'd need to gut employment regulation, get rid of unions, and finally cut the wages of workers throughout the country across the board.
Here's the thing, jobs will come back if the taxes would be lifted. People aren't stupid and they will go where they can make a profit, if that is in their own back yard then they will move back there. You also mention that they have a lower stander of living, well what about us now? Without jobs people are loosing their homes, people loosing everything that they have and yet you think that our stander of living hasn't changed? As for the unions, well that's a huge can of worms that I don't want to open, but I will say this. If they are given a job that actually pays verses staying unemployed, most will choose the job. If they chose not to then they have no one to blame if they loose everything because of their pride. Most want money so that they can live life and no taxes will help them with a bit more money to do that and make more jobs.

Getting manufacturing jobs back here will raise the price of manufactured goods and services, there's no two ways about it.

The solution is obvious, high-tech industry and a college educated workforce.  The third world will always do a better job of unskilled/uneducated labor, this is just a new reality that needs to accepted in lieu of reminiscing about the past when your dad supported your entire family working in the automobile plant for GM straight out of high school.  That America is gone, the global economy killed it.
That first statement is far from true. While it might raise the price of goods only 30% you keep forgetting that that government takes out more than that in your taxes. Look at you paychecks and tell me just how much more money you would get if they didn't take it out and then think about only 30% on top of something that you would buy. I can tell you that it would turn out to be less in the end to pay the 30% then it would be to pay all the taxes that we have to pay. Both the ones that you know about and all the hidden ones that they have you paying now and calling it something else.

Also you add that high-tech and college workforce would fix it? I would love to see how that would help when most people with college degrees are working in a different field than the degree is for. Plus you can't high-tech everything. There are things that can't, shouldn't and most people don't want to be high-tech. I was also wondering how you could say that keeping people in school anywhere from four to eight more years would help? School isn't cheap, so where would all that money come from if there were less jobs out there and the jobs that were you had to have college degrees for? Look at the number of college students now who will graduate and not have jobs because there isn't any out there or if they are they are already taken.

You're right that a 30% sales tax would cut away the marriage things I don't agree with, but it would also eliminate the idea of a dependent.  Parents would pay more taxes simply for having children (by needing to purchase things for them) instead of getting assistance for perpetuating our society.
Well that's the beauty of things, since the taxes would be gone they would have more money to raise their kids. Plus if you took out that little perk on the kids then you wouldn't have all the people who are on programs because they just want the breaks and just keep having kids. It would make people stop and really think about having families. They would need to actually think instead of just having kids. I'm sorry, but I am tired of people adopting kids overseas and wanting money sent to them when we have kids in our own contry who are starving, neglected and unwanted as well. I'll not go into more about this since it would get off the tax debate.

You'd have to get the U.S. out of every fair trade agreement it's signed in the past 20 years.

Sure we'd get jobs, but it would cost more to buy everything.

How do you think other countries will react?  They'll put tariffs on our goods as well.  Severing the ties of the Global Economy is not progress.
It wouldn't matter how the other contries reacted, we would have the ability to take care of our own once again. Did you know that there was a time not that long ago that we didn't need to import stuff here and that other countries bought our products? Well the best part of this would be the jobs would be back and if the jobs are back there are more product out there that would lower the demand on things which would lower prices of things so that the tax on them would weigh out nicely. It wouldn't cost more to buy everything if it's in your own back yard. The supply would be high and the demand would be lower than it is now making things cheaper. If we get back to making just about everything that we need then would could also go back to selling things to other contries and become self sufficient once again. That is what did make this country strong and it can once again. If we don't first take care of ourselves then we will collaps from the inside out and will be preyed upon by others. Jobs are very important, they will come back if the taxes are lifted and things won't cost so much that no one could afford them. That way of thinking is just unheard of. While there might not be millionairs on every corner, we will live very comfortably and become a strong nation once again. Saying things like that way is dead is far from the truth, it is still alive and well in the small business out there and the big business will come back and follow us to making a stronger nation.


http://www.huckpac.com/?Fuseaction=Blogs.View&Blog_id=3049
This is just a link, whether you totally agree with it or not, this gives you a look into the fair tax act. But please remember, THIS ISN'T THE ONLT TAX IDEA AND WON'T NECESSARILY BE THE ONE THAT WILL TRY TO BE PUT THROUGH. There will always be things changed to anything that will come up to be a bill.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2010, 11:33:36 PM by loki »

Offline Jude

Re: Join the Online Tax Revolt
« Reply #34 on: April 11, 2010, 12:44:03 AM »
Every group you named is a conservative group which is promoting a flat tax.  Not sure where this supposed diversity of opinion comes from.  At least one of them is a Republican organization masquerading as a grassroots effort (freedom works).  Show me a single quote where these organizations have said they don't support the fair tax and I will personally join this group.

The one part of your last post I agree with is this:
Quote from: loki
People aren't stupid and they will go where they can make a profit
Tell me, where is there more potential for profit when it comes to manufacturing?

A developing nation with citizens struggling to get by that has few regulations and cheap labor or a first-world country with a high standard of living, $8 minimum wage, unions, the EPA, and a consumption-driven society?

Whenever an employer hires someone in America, they're paying for their car, the first and second mortgage, their internet, the copious amounts of food they eat, their cellphone, cable bill, etc.  If you hire someone in India, you just have to pay for their food and the upkeep of their shanty (< exaggerated language).

How do you even propose that the U.S. goes about lowering their taxes so they can meet India's tax rates anyway?  We have more entitlements, more overhead, more social welfare programs.  Do you want to slash all of that too?

We can play the economic limbo and see if we can reduce ourselves to third world status so that we too can work long hours in a crowded factory for, or we can look towards industries that the rest of the world has yet to expand into and make money like we always have:  innovation and technology.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2010, 12:48:34 AM by Jude »

Online Vekseid

Re: Join the Online Tax Revolt
« Reply #35 on: April 11, 2010, 01:10:23 AM »
Several groups including the Fair Tax Campaign, Tea Party Express, Americans for Tax Reform and FreedomWorks are banding together physically and digitally to urge Congress to overhaul the tax code.

Several corporatist groups uniting under one banner to further the cause of their sponsors at your expense. No thanks.

Quote
Here's the thing, jobs will come back if the taxes would be lifted.

You could support your assertion by proving Europe doesn't exist. Most EU nations we have a trade deficit with have higher taxes, after all. Our balance of trade deficit is actually largely a factor of 1) Our need to import oil and 2) Chinese currency manipulation. Just go here: http://usdebtclock.org/

Pretty clear what the two biggest components of our deficit are! The United States would still possess a trade surplus if we ended China's currency manipulation and our dependence on foreign oil.

Taxes are not some magic vacuum cleaner that sends money off to a black hole for no conceivable purpose. By acting as a giant insurance company responsible for the entirety of its citizenry, the government promotes the development of value adding services (such as actual factory workers) over value neutral services (guards, security) and hopefully eliminating value destroying services (the health care industry as it currently exists in the United States).


Quote
People aren't stupid and they will go where they can make a profit, if that is in their own back yard then they will move back there. You also mention that they have a lower stander of living, well what about us now? Without jobs people are loosing their homes, people loosing everything that they have and yet you think that our stander of living hasn't changed?

Twenty million homes stand empty, two million people have no home. What, pray tell, is the problem, aside from protecting some greedy useless leech's score in the magic dollar game?

Quote
That first statement is far from true. While it might raise the price of goods only 30% you keep forgetting that that government takes out more than that in your taxes.

No it doesn't and you know it.

Quote
I can tell you that it would turn out to be less in the end to pay the 30% then it would be to pay all the taxes that we have to pay. Both the ones that you know about and all the hidden ones that they have you paying now and calling it something else.

For anyone making between $25k and $200k per year, this is a lie.

America's middle class will pay more, and the Fairtax proponents even admit to this.

Quote
Also you add that high-tech and college workforce would fix it? I would love to see how that would help when most people with college degrees are working in a different field than the degree is for. Plus you can't high-tech everything. There are things that can't, shouldn't and most people don't want to be high-tech. I was also wondering how you could say that keeping people in school anywhere from four to eight more years would help? School isn't cheap, so where would all that money come from if there were less jobs out there and the jobs that were you had to have college degrees for? Look at the number of college students now who will graduate and not have jobs because there isn't any out there or if they are they are already taken.

The more appropriate question is "Why is school no longer cheap?"

Another more appropriate question is "Why should people with no mathematical or economic understanding be allowed to dictate tax policy?"

I mean - seriously. It's fine if someone doesn't know the specific terms, but someone should understand basic issues like value-generating services versus value-neutral and value-destroying ones. They all add to the GDP, but they are not equal.

Quote
Well that's the beauty of things, since the taxes would be gone they would have more money to raise their kids.

Again, for anyone making between $25k and $200k per year, this is a lie.

Quote
It wouldn't matter how the other contries reacted, we would have the ability to take care of our own once again.

News flash: America can no longer act with impunity on the international scene.

There is a very legitimate reason for NAFTA.

We set it up to secure rights to Canada's and Mexico's oil. You want to cut that flow off? China will pay more with, with our dollars even.

Quote
Did you know that there was a time not that long ago that we didn't need to import stuff here and that other countries bought our products?

Yes, it would be nice to see people promoting that concept rather than antiprotectionism, China worship, Oil worship, and anti-intellectualism. That might have a chance at happening, then.

But not under your plan. You are actively sabotaging America's strength just by promoting this nonsense. It does no good to have the general American public think it's okay to violate treaties at will, some of which we get quite a lot of benefit from.

Quote
This is just a link, whether you totally agree with it or not, this gives you a look into the fair tax act. But please remember, THIS ISN'T THE ONLT TAX IDEA AND WON'T NECESSARILY BE THE ONE THAT WILL TRY TO BE PUT THROUGH. There will always be things changed to anything that will come up to be a bill.

Come up with something that's not so damned regressive and promoting of class division and it may be considered. Or point to something. But we've already read up on Fairtax. It's a war on small business, on startups, and on the middle class. If you have something else, show it.


Offline DarklingAlice

Re: Join the Online Tax Revolt
« Reply #36 on: April 11, 2010, 01:12:14 AM »
That first statement is far from true. While it might raise the price of goods only 30% you keep forgetting that that government takes out more than that in your taxes. Look at you paychecks and tell me just how much more money you would get if they didn't take it out and then think about only 30% on top of something that you would buy. I can tell you that it would turn out to be less in the end to pay the 30% then it would be to pay all the taxes that we have to pay. Both the ones that you know about and all the hidden ones that they have you paying now and calling it something else.

Let's just nip this in the bud.

Unites States median household income is $44,389 (source: US Census Bureau). For the sake of simplicity we will assume that they only have standard deductions. This means that the median taxable income for a single person household would be $38,689; and the taxable income for a married (filing jointly) household would be $32,989.

So if you are single you would pay: $5,856 in income taxes. Or ~13%

If you are married (filing jointly) you would pay: $4,111 in income taxes. Or ~9%

In addition everyone pays an extra $3,395 or 7.65% for FICA and SECA.

If these households were self employed they would have to pay both sides of FICA and SECA, which is to say: $6,791 or 15.3%. However in this case they would also deduct half their self employment tax from their taxable income. Making the single household taxable income $35,294; and the married household taxable income 29,594. This would reduce their income tax owed to $5,006 (~11%)and $3,601 (~8%)respectively.

So we can see that if they aren't self employed half of all American households pay either 20.65% or 16.65%. If they are these percentages rise to 26.3% and 23.3% respectively. And this is with only standard deductions, no itemized deductions, no schedule L, no credits, no children, etc.

Thus loki's claim is demonstrably false for over half of all American households.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2010, 01:16:03 AM by DarklingAlice »

Offline lokiTopic starter

Re: Join the Online Tax Revolt
« Reply #37 on: April 11, 2010, 10:34:06 AM »
Once again everyone wants to attack the fair act tax when the whole point to this thread was to get together and make a change in the tax laws as it stands now. You all said that change is necessary but everyone of you are tearing apart just one idea. A idea that might change things in the future, but right now all it is a pile of papers sitting somewhere on a desk doing nothing. You all said that you want something to stand behind though we haven't even taken the first step in a direction to make a change. Yes, we could stand here all day and tear up the fair tax when in all reality you and I both know that if the fair tax is even one of the ideas that makes it to congress it will be changed in more ways than one to make it work. Hell, it may not even be a 30% tax it may lower and only be 20% or even 15%. You don't know because nothing has happened yet. I want some change and to get that it needs to start somewhere, if not here and now then when and where? If not the way that they are providing then how? Any of you have any ideas as to how to do it, because I am almost sure that there are some Democratic ideas out there but none or no one is will to bring forward. It's always easier to tear apart someone else idea then it is to come up with one that will actually fix things and from what I have been reading you all would kill anything that might even begin before it starts.

So that leaves us where? Still in a lot of trouble, still with a ton of unemployed, still with a government that wants to increase taxes with health care. still with business leaving all the time. Where's the fix when the life that you have know falls down around you and you have no way out? It will happen if change doesn't. I would argue/debate with you until I was blue in the face, but debating an act of tax that is just an idea and not the only one out there is almost pointless. We don't know what will come of change unless you let it start. This whole debate about the fair tax idea might just be moot if they don't even decide to use it at all and even if they did you still know that things in it would change to get it past all the people that it has to get past. We all want change in things but where do we start? I believe that this is a start of something and would like to see how, if it even does, it will progress. If you want change then stand up and be counted, if you don't then you can do what you have been doing and just complain about everything.



On a personal note, in the past five years I have went through a divorce and got hit with a ton of taxes because I am self employed. I am below the standard of living poverty line and am now going to be forced to buy health insurance that I can't afford. And now even with the governments supposed help with the banks and all the hoops that you have to jump through to try and get your house redone so that you can keep it, I still lost my house. I am beyond tired of playing by their rules, doing everything right and still coming out on the shitty end of things. I want change, it's plan and simple. I still have my work and I am still making money to pay things but I have been shafted by the government enough times now that I want change. I don't blame anyone, I know the rules in place are wrong and I work hard for everything that I have gotten. But I also know that there is a time for change and that time is now.

Offline Jude

Re: Join the Online Tax Revolt
« Reply #38 on: April 11, 2010, 11:34:08 AM »
I simply do not believe that a change in the tax code can make up for the difference in living wages between a third-world worker and a first-world worker, no matter how we change our tax system.

The third-world and the first-world each have their respective strengths and weaknesses.

Third-world laborers are unskilled, poorly educated, and difficult to manage.  Even if they do speak English, they have a hard time communicating with native English speakers and there are difficulty cultural boundaries for them to cross.  They will work for very little because they don't need much to support themselves and their family, and they typically do not demand the sort of benefits that usually come with full-time American Employment.

First world laborers are educated, proficient communicators with professional attitude that are versed in business culture.  You don't need to go to college to fit this group, there are many ways to receive training (tech schools, etc.) that can set you apart from unskilled laborers.  The reason a business would hire a first-worlder over a third, is that they can do things that thirders simply can't, they're easier to manage because they speak English better, there's less of a cultural barrier, and the quality of their work tends to be higher.  This is even true when you compare computer programmers from India to American Programmers; while they're both skilled, the American is going to be a better employee (who will tend to work for higher wages).

We need to play to our strengths rather than trying to compete with nations that are set up for a more Industrial-age manufacturing society.  Most of the jobs that we've lost were that type of work, and I see no reason to believe that they're coming back.  That doesn't mean we can't replace them with other jobs or that there is no room in our society for manufacturing or physical labor-based enterprises, I just don't see that ever becoming such a large source of employment in the United States again.

Manufacturing cars worked for us in the past because we were the only people who did it, now we've got the rest of the world to compete with because they've caught up in that sector.  We have the wealth and affluence that we do because we created new Industries and sold our products to the world, something that we haven't done since the Internet boom in the 90s.  Innovation is how our economy sustains itself, it's why we are where we are, Americans have always been the first to either come up with new technological trends or popularize them (in the case of the automobile); we amass our wealth by being an entrepreneurial state.

We should be focusing our resources on inventing the energy sources of the future, reducing carbon footprints, and creating a more pollution-free world.  That's clearly the next technological step, and these so called green jobs are exactly what our President thinks we should be focusing on.

Oh, and by the way?  If we find an alternate energy resource, improve energy efficiency, etc. then we will have less dependence on foreign oil.  That'll help fix the trade deficit, allow us to extract ourselves from the middle east, and give us valuable commodities to sell worldwide.

This has very little to do with taxes (though entrepreneurial and research grants/tax credits do help) and everything to do with the state of our society culturally and educationally.  If you'd like to discuss what the faults I see there are, I'd be happy to drag this to another thread, but it isn't relevant here.

EDIT:  One final point...  You've jumped around from point to point every time someone presents a decent argument against what you've said.  You're basically blanketing the thread with different claims.  First you tried to make it sound non-partisan, I showed that it isn't.  Then I pointed out that the majority of leaders are Republican, then you said it's made of different groups.  Then I pointed out that a lot of the groups are republican or at least shills for republicans and then you said that the bill change through congress so it doesn't matter.  This is a classic moving the goalpost fallacy; every time you say something that can be argued against, you just move it further out of reach.

Another example:  you make the argument that taxes can create employment, I respond, then you respond and someone else refutes some of your factual claims there to the point that it shows that taxes actually go up on the middle class (which is completely counter to the basis of your claims).  Then, after defending and arguing for the fair tax, you claim that it doesn't matter because it probably won't actually be used in that form after it goes through congress.  Do you support it or not?
« Last Edit: April 11, 2010, 12:19:36 PM by Jude »

Offline RubySlippers

Re: Join the Online Tax Revolt
« Reply #39 on: April 11, 2010, 12:40:45 PM »
You'd have to get the U.S. out of every fair trade agreement it's signed in the past 20 years.

Sure we'd get jobs, but it would cost more to buy everything.

How do you think other countries will react?  They'll put tariffs on our goods as well.  Severing the ties of the Global Economy is not progress.

No we won't just to this to American companies and its an internal matter, to encourage companies to stay here or return factories here. And I say if China can be all protectionist we shouldreturn the favor. And what Fair Trade agreements we just sign away our security to nations with an often crappier standard of living and labor laws doing this might encourage they raise it. We could base the Tariff on the other nations labor laws and workers rights making it a tool to kick the asses of these government to treat workers better. Or lose the US as an importer.


Offline DarklingAlice

Re: Join the Online Tax Revolt
« Reply #40 on: April 11, 2010, 12:56:01 PM »
On a personal note, in the past five years I have went through a divorce and got hit with a ton of taxes because I am self employed. I am below the standard of living poverty line and am now going to be forced to buy health insurance that I can't afford.

Please check your facts. The poverty line in this country, for an unmarried person, is ~$11,201 (source: Department of Health and Human Services) . The self-employment tax is not overly burdensome, and the so called 'employer's half' of it is deducted from your taxable income. Through no manipulation of the tax code can you pay 'a ton of taxes' if your income is below that amount, even if all of that income is self employment.

Offline Jude

Re: Join the Online Tax Revolt
« Reply #41 on: April 11, 2010, 03:26:10 PM »
No we won't just to this to American companies and its an internal matter, to encourage companies to stay here or return factories here. And I say if China can be all protectionist we shouldreturn the favor. And what Fair Trade agreements we just sign away our security to nations with an often crappier standard of living and labor laws doing this might encourage they raise it. We could base the Tariff on the other nations labor laws and workers rights making it a tool to kick the asses of these government to treat workers better. Or lose the US as an importer.
It's probably not a good idea to enact a policy of economic aggression against a country that we owe trillions of dollars to.

Offline Asuras

Re: Join the Online Tax Revolt
« Reply #42 on: April 15, 2010, 01:51:59 AM »
Quote from: Vekseid
Which at least would  point out the nonpayment issues early. It still doesn't address the overpayment issues small businesses face.

They do anyway. Little people always suck. To compensate, we have a progressive tax structure.

Quote from: Vekseid
Why would deregulation help? This is the same industry that gave birth to the California crisis, for crying out loud.

You were arguing that regulated utilities would not necessarily respond to structural changes in the market in setting prices...deregulating regulating utilities seems to erase this distinction, no?

Now, to go down this rabbit hole, the California energy industry was not completely deregulated. There were pricing schemes (floors mainly) that the legislature left in place that Enron manipulated...which is why this never happened in Texas (which is where Enron was based!) where the industry was completely privatized and prices floated.

Quote from: Vekseid
I don't even need to leave the hosting example here: So I can get out of $100/month of tax by reselling space on each of my servers?

They called them "reseller permits" when I was in WA, and they call them "resale certificates" in NY and TX.

Quote from: Vekseid
The IRS expects new businesses to operate at a loss. It actively gives you a leg up. That's not the case here - new business costs and revenue are taxed under FairTax whether you sink or sink.

Again - the main point here is that businesses either pay the tax visibly, when they pay the sales tax, or they pay it invisibly - through income taxes that they have to cough up to compensate their employees, or through sales taxes passed back up the supply chain. So if they operate at a loss here "because of the sales tax" they'd be operating at a loss anyway because of the income tax that their employees get, or the income taxes that their partners on the supply chain pay.

Quote from: Vekseid
Which is why they're withheld.

I'm still waiting to hear why this system would beat replacing all taxes with property taxes.

It would mainly be a difference in distribution. Anything property intensive vs. anything people actually buy, so it is a question of equity.

And the import/export question is completely different if you rely on property taxes too.

Quote from: I
Businesses have ridiculous amounts of wacky tax obligations as it is - which bankruptcy courts do regularly sift through - what makes this different?

Quote from: Vekseid
Magnitude.

Prove this.

Offline lokiTopic starter

Re: Join the Online Tax Revolt
« Reply #43 on: April 20, 2010, 08:33:19 PM »
A letter sent out to the Tax revolt with this info that everyone should know.

Much of the media coverage called your Online Tax Revolt Rally, a Tea Party Event. That is fine, this is the name the public knows best, the Tea Party Express was among the many organizations that participated in the rally. But we delivered hundreds of thousands of your Online Tax Revolt Demands on Congress in the morning before your event, so the Senators and Members of the House of Representatives--which is where we wanted and needed to deliver the message loud and strong--know all too well that it was you and your Avatar that delivered the biggest Tax Revolt Event ever!

And we are committed to staying together until:
Congress delivers a real, meaningful change in our tax laws, ones that deals with the ever mounting deficits which are committing our children, grandchildren and generations of Americans yet unborn to an intolerable level of taxation.
Congress delivers a tax code that can be understood by the average taxpaying American, and short enough to make reading feasible for a taxpayer--the 67,500 pages of the current tax code probably cannot be understood by the Secretary of the Treasury, the I. R. S., CPA's, economists or anyone else! Who profits from it? Lobbyists, their special interest clients, and most Members of Congress who really do not want us to understand what they are up to!
Congress delivers a system of taxation which does not cost us millions of jobs, which does not make foreign companies more competitive than American companies, which does not cost our taxpayers more than $300 billion (that's $300,000,000,000.00!) in calculation and paperwork costs just to file our taxes! Studies actually show that it small businesses pay far more to file their taxes than they pay in actual taxes. Small business drives our economy, creates most of the new jobs, and millions of Americans start or work to start to move up the economic ladder.
Congress delivers a tax system that does not restrict the Freedom of Religion by telling our pastors and other religious leaders what they can or cannot say in a House of Worship or face the loss of their tax-exempt status--a power which enables the Internal Revenue Service to utterly destroy a place of worship or even a religion with a tax ruling!

We will stick together, we will continue to be the worst nightmare of the politicians and candidates and banks and special interests and lobbyists who make billions of dollars making deals for their fat cat clients.

And we will reward those in the Congress who have the courage to stand up for the average, hard working Americans, and defeat those who will not, until these changes are made and the promises kept!



Keep the drive alive and join for change.

Online Vekseid

Re: Join the Online Tax Revolt
« Reply #44 on: April 20, 2010, 10:54:25 PM »
They do anyway. Little people always suck.

What, pray tell, is that supposed to mean?

Quote
To compensate, we have a progressive tax structure.

We have a progressive tax structure because it is a proven fact that income disparity leads to instability. Because some corporatist snob manipulates what a dollar is worth to pay his workers, does not mean they aren't paying their share, if only in the unpaid value of their labor.

Quote
You were arguing that regulated utilities would not necessarily respond to structural changes in the market in setting prices...deregulating regulating utilities seems to erase this distinction, no?

I made no distinction between regulated local monopolies and unregulated. Your second phrase makes no sense.

If the state has no ability to bar local municipalities from managing their own power arrangements, there won't be many issues, no, but that sort of thing is not ipso-facto regulation versus deregulation - anyone who attains a monopoly over delivering power in a region has full control over the market and thus is not subject to free market forces.

Quote
Now, to go down this rabbit hole, the California energy industry was not completely deregulated. There were pricing schemes (floors mainly) that the legislature left in place that Enron manipulated...which is why this never happened in Texas (which is where Enron was based!) where the industry was completely privatized and prices floated.

As a guess, Texas doesn't have local monopolies as with California, then?

Quote
They called them "reseller permits" when I was in WA, and they call them "resale certificates" in NY and TX.

That would be an issue depending entirely on what the qualifications were. In my own personal case, the state of Minnesota requires that I charge sales tax for my services, so I have no such fallback, and that's why I pay it twice.

Quote
Again - the main point here is that businesses either pay the tax visibly, when they pay the sales tax, or they pay it invisibly - through income taxes that they have to cough up to compensate their employees, or through sales taxes passed back up the supply chain. So if they operate at a loss here "because of the sales tax" they'd be operating at a loss anyway because of the income tax that their employees get, or the income taxes that their partners on the supply chain pay.

That doesn't compensate for the regressive (and welfare-sponsering) nature of the tax. I hate income, payroll, and other random taxes and fees that get levied for everything under the sun - but at least the 90% income tax bracket effectively forced reinvestment (and it showed).

There is a more subtle question about what happens if/when the fabrication and algaculture economies take off. At least with a property-based tax structure there is a natural segue into some future system there, rather than "Whoever starts with the most land wins."

Quote
It would mainly be a difference in distribution. Anything property intensive vs. anything people actually buy, so it is a question of equity.

And the import/export question is completely different if you rely on property taxes too.

With property-intensives you can deal with externalities at the source, though (assuming it's in addition to tariffs). Doing that at the sale end is difficult enough already (and by definition impossible with a flat sales tax).

Quote
Prove this.

Prove? Right now my expenses are subtracted from my income before I pay taxes. Depreciation, startup deductions... The IRS as it is now is extremely eager to see new businesses get on their feet.

Sales taxes have no such grace. You pay your monthly, quarterly or annual obligation, lie about it, get fined or go to jail. It adds a 30% cost to the startup of each and every new business.

To me, that actually looks like the intent of it - to freeze currently extant businesses in place and make it that much harder for new ones to start up.

Offline Asuras

Re: Join the Online Tax Revolt
« Reply #45 on: April 21, 2010, 02:22:15 AM »
Quote from: Vekseid
We have a progressive tax structure because it is a proven fact that income disparity leads to instability. Because some corporatist snob manipulates what a dollar is worth to pay his workers, does not mean they aren't paying their share, if only in the unpaid value of their labor.

This "instability" is due to the poor and middle class and small businessmen demanding their fair share...which was my point - they are provided compensation. Isn't that what I said?

Quote from: Vekseid
I made no distinction between regulated local monopolies and unregulated.

A) How many unregulated monopolies are there?
B) Are there so many as to be substantial to this argument?
C) Even monopolies have to respond to demand.

Quote from: Vekseid
As a guess, Texas doesn't have local monopolies as with California, then?

Neither Texas nor California had energy monopolies.

Quote from: Vekseid
That would be an issue depending entirely on what the qualifications were. In my own personal case, the state of Minnesota requires that I charge sales tax for my services, so I have no such fallback, and that's why I pay it twice.

There is no resale certificate in MN?

Quote from: Vekseid
There is a more subtle question about what happens if/when the fabrication and algaculture economies take off. At least with a property-based tax structure there is a natural segue into some future system there, rather than "Whoever starts with the most land wins."

With property-intensives you can deal with externalities at the source, though (assuming it's in addition to tariffs). Doing that at the sale end is difficult enough already (and by definition impossible with a flat sales tax).

Setting aside how fanciful and far-off that is, a sales tax would still be more equitable than a property tax. A reasonable example is a rich yuppie who buys expensive organic food vs. a cash-strapped working-class American who buys what he can at Wal-Mart...the property taxes will be the same acre for acre, and thus profoundly regressive against the working class.

Fine by me though.

Quote from: Vekseid

Prove? Right now my expenses are subtracted from my income before I pay taxes. Depreciation, startup deductions... The IRS as it is now is extremely eager to see new businesses get on their feet.

Sales taxes have no such grace. You pay your monthly, quarterly or annual obligation, lie about it, get fined or go to jail. It adds a 30% cost to the startup of each and every new business.

To me, that actually looks like the intent of it - to freeze currently extant businesses in place and make it that much harder for new ones to start up.

And right now you pay 30% more in wages (if you have employees) or in costs (which eventually are paid out as wages). This tax is there regardless of where it's paid, it's just hidden in your invoices and payrolls.

Online Vekseid

Re: Join the Online Tax Revolt
« Reply #46 on: April 21, 2010, 03:22:19 AM »
This "instability" is due to the poor and middle class and small businessmen demanding their fair share...which was my point - they are provided compensation. Isn't that what I said?

No:
Quote
They do anyway. Little people always suck. To compensate, we have a progressive tax structure.

The instability is due to the increased spread of illness, the increased funding for the protection of wealth rather than the production of new wealth, the support of nonproductive classes beyond the need for them, etc.

Quote
A) How many unregulated monopolies are there?
B) Are there so many as to be substantial to this argument?
C) Even monopolies have to respond to demand.

The point was that it would need to be addressed, not that it couldn't be, and that many of them will fight it. It's still a cost without a guaranteed trivial outcome.

Quote
There is no resale certificate in MN?

It's still a retail exemption certificate. A naive transference of the rules there would give me a rather easy out for a chunk of my hosting fees.

But still - as a service provider in my original business, it's useless. I don't maintain inventory, I provide a service that Minnesota requires me to pay a sales tax for. Serious pain.

Quote
Setting aside how fanciful and far-off that is, a sales tax would still be more equitable than a property tax. A reasonable example is a rich yuppie who buys expensive organic food vs. a cash-strapped working-class American who buys what he can at Wal-Mart...the property taxes will be the same acre for acre, and thus profoundly regressive against the working class.

Huh? Property tax in Minnesota at least is based off of market value, in addition to homesteading, which would certainly carry up to a national system (like Fairtax's 'prebate'). Ideally, the exemption would carry into a second property and promote small business development. The self-reinforcing strength of local economies is also important to stability, after all.

The idea being, paying taxes for what you are actually having protected

Quote
And right now you pay 30% more in wages (if you have employees) or in costs (which eventually are paid out as wages). This tax is there regardless of where it's paid, it's just hidden in your invoices and payrolls.

Erm. I would only pay about 15% more (payroll tax) for an employee unless I paid her enough that her deductions and credits did not nearly wipe it all out in her refund. She'd get more via the prebate, yes, but if I wanted to pay her a decent wage (much more than $2k/month), her tax burden eventually increases under Fairtax.

Which seems to be the point.

In addition, I'm not paying 30% of everything I take in terms of revenue, either. The number this year was negligible in comparison (almost as if EIC and MWP were designed to take the pain out of the self employment tax period), while I would under Fairtax, and I'd still be paying for it in goods and services.

Offline Noelle

Re: Join the Online Tax Revolt
« Reply #47 on: April 21, 2010, 10:46:40 AM »

Offline RubySlippers

Re: Join the Online Tax Revolt
« Reply #48 on: April 22, 2010, 12:58:28 PM »
There was talk eariler we should focus on college level, hit-techor skilled jobs over labor heavy. I have to point out a simple fact if you take 99 students of the same social background and economic background lets say middle class tradespeople and mid-level professionals this is very likely going to happen:

33 in any one area will be above average they may have better skills in math, or read better, or be socially outgoing or be a good athelete or more artistic etc.

33 will be average maybe struggle a bit or not but fall into the median level in areas above.

33 will be below average and its not even fair to look at them being considered for that area.

But not all are equal in our society over say the 50's for the major ones now mathematics skill, use of language and literacy and science are all elevated over other areas since these are college focus and say being socially gifted or artistic is not.  So saying EVERYONE will be able to go to college leaves out two thirds of students who may have some talent or not but not on par with the needs of a bachelors degree or higher education. What is going to happen if this trend continues we will have a third doing well, a third getting by maybe in a skilled trade or a profession demanding a two-year degree and shitting on the rest. This bottom group used to go to work in factories and make a decent living not anymore. And the jobs they can get amount to bottom dead end jobs even if they work hard and are good employees. What is this fact going to do on taxes when half of our students and workers fall into lower wage employment permanently. Taking out those to this 33 low performers in math say that includes thos that have middling math skills and might get a two-year degree earning more but still might be dead end in employment long term at some point.

This tax situation for me is simple we have a government doing lots of things, we have a safety net and we must pay for that with taxes one way or another. I would favor a VAT over what we have now and measures to keep or bring back factory work here regardless of what other nations do. Free trade is a stupid concept that is not realistic when we have a higher standard of living than some third world shit hole. It may work with two nations roughly equal in a standard of living.

I have another idea over a tariff, just have a Comparable Income Loss Tax say they Could make a Widget here for $20 a unit but make one in Acmestan for $2, just take the difference to the American company if $18 since they could have offered the job here but opted not to. If they build them in Germany and its also $20 or more than fine no tax.

Offline Asuras

Re: Join the Online Tax Revolt
« Reply #49 on: April 23, 2010, 01:37:53 AM »
Quote from: Vekseid
The instability is due to the increased spread of illness, the increased funding for the protection of wealth rather than the production of new wealth, the support of nonproductive classes beyond the need for them, etc.

What "nonproductive classes?" What "protection of wealth?" What does this have to do with instability?

Now on health....fine, I'm completely for health care reform.

Quote from: Vekseid
The point was that it would need to be addressed, not that it couldn't be, and that many of them will fight it. It's still a cost without a guaranteed trivial outcome.

Is there ever a "guaranteed trivial outcome" in politics?

Quote from: Vekseid
It's still a retail exemption certificate. A naive transference of the rules there would give me a rather easy out for a chunk of my hosting fees.

But still - as a service provider in my original business, it's useless. I don't maintain inventory, I provide a service that Minnesota requires me to pay a sales tax for. Serious pain.

I don't understand - do you resell or don't you?

Quote from: Vekseid
Huh? Property tax in Minnesota at least is based off of market value, in addition to homesteading, which would certainly carry up to a national system (like Fairtax's 'prebate'). Ideally, the exemption would carry into a second property and promote small business development. The self-reinforcing strength of local economies is also important to stability, after all.

The idea being, paying taxes for what you are actually having protected

You are protected for more than real estate. If there were a national property tax, I would:

A) Move back to Texas, where land is fucking cheap.
B) My business would also move back to fucking Texas.
C) We'd pay virtually nothing in property taxes since office space costs half as much
D) Meanwhile, the tax burden would be passed on to people who purchase real estate-intensive items...food would be a good example.
E) Luxury goods like...really big fancy TVs wouldn't be so affected since more of the cost goes to engineering, which is not real estate-intensive.

Hence the regressiveness of a property tax.

Quote from: Vekseid
Erm. I would only pay about 15% more (payroll tax) for an employee unless I paid her enough that her deductions and credits did not nearly wipe it all out in her refund. She'd get more via the prebate, yes, but if I wanted to pay her a decent wage (much more than $2k/month), her tax burden eventually increases under Fairtax.

Which seems to be the point.

I don't really care about the size/structure of the prebate - that can be changed to make the tax more or less progressive. I agree that the FairTax programme that the nuts in Congress suggested raises the tax burden on the middle class and that isn't justified.

Quote from: Vekseid
In addition, I'm not paying 30% of everything I take in terms of revenue, either. The number this year was negligible in comparison (almost as if EIC and MWP were designed to take the pain out of the self employment tax period), while I would under Fairtax, and I'd still be paying for it in goods and services.

Right, but I'll say it again:

You may not be paying these taxes yourself, but in the costs of the goods and services you purchase, you are paying these taxes indirectly. So, yeah, maybe it's 5% for you personally, but the other 25% is hidden in the cost that you pay out to employees and in your personal expenses.