Posted by burnsy483 on 6/27/2014 9:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2014 5:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/26/2014 5:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2014 5:13:00 PM (view original):
Honestly, our culture is almost like public school education.   They teach to the slowest kid in class so he doesn't get left behind.    This entire thread is dedicated to how to make sure that same kid doesn't get left behind now that he's all grown up.   Sometimes people just have to be left behind for the greater good.   And while that sucks for them, you can only do so much to make sure they're part of the pack.

Yea, philosophical differences.  Assuming this kid/adult is actually trying.

How do we determine "effort"?

I don't know.  But I'm not going to want to implement a more regressive tax policy because of the people who aren't putting forth enough effort to improve their situations.  I'm considering the people who are trying to.

From the FAQ....(I can't post the graph fig 6 from my phone)


Is the FairTax progressive? Do the rich pay more and the poor pay less as a percentage of their spending?

Absolutely, as you can see in Figure 6 below -- where the graph shows annual expenditures for a family of four and the corresponding FairTax effective tax rates. The poor actually pay less than zero-percent retail sales tax on their spending. Much like with the earned income tax credit of today, the rebate may give them more money than they actually spend on retail taxes. Especially if they are frugal and buy mostly used products. On the other hand, the wealthy approach a maximum of 23-percent retail sales tax on their spending.

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/27/2014 9:14:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 6/26/2014 5:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/26/2014 5:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 6/26/2014 5:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/26/2014 4:54:00 PM (view original):
It's not a good excuse, I agree.

To me almost everything boils down to education (including financial, nutritional, etc). Educated people are wealthier, healthier, and make better life decisions. Solve that problem and most other problems are solved. The attention is unfortunately always directed elsewhere... Whether its wars, class, race, or minimum wage.

It's a great point.  How do we solve that problem? 

tough challenge considering how much influence the media (tv and internet). hollywood, and the music industry currently have on children. Rapping about money, cash, hoes doesn't necessarily scream 'education is cool'. its also tough because many families now a days need 2 working parents to do more than just get by so where is the discipline at home.

i'll have to give it some thought...

My local paper recently came out with the graduation rates of the schools in the area I live.  Where I live, the graduation rate was about 90%.  A neighboring school district, in an obviously worse off area, had a 45% graduation rate.  It will be these children who complain that they can't get by in life and need government assistance.  I assume that some of these kids need to work to bring in money at home, or need to deal drugs for the same reason.  But I would venture to guess that doesn't apply to the majority.  So A) Why are these kids dropping out of school and B) How do you convince them that staying in school and going to college (even community college) will lead to a more fulfilling life? I understand that I can't sympathize with their childhood, how they've been raised, and what many of them have been exposed to; it's an area that's much different than what I grew up in.

A) Kids drop out of school for the same reason most of us thought it might be a good idea.   School isn't fun.  Money in your pocket is fun.   16 y/o don't think about their life when they're 30.   So, without proper guidance from an adult(like a parent), they do what they think is better for today.

B)  You don't.  An adult in their life has to do it.

Of course, there are kids who are planning the next 50 years of their life but they are far from the majority.

Remember there is 0% sales tax on used goods. If the poor don't NEED new goods (clothes, cars, furniture, etc) they can end up making money off the prebate. I think that's a great thing on so many fronts... Financially and environmentally.

Posted by moy23 on 6/27/2014 9:22:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/27/2014 9:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2014 5:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/26/2014 5:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2014 5:13:00 PM (view original):
Honestly, our culture is almost like public school education.   They teach to the slowest kid in class so he doesn't get left behind.    This entire thread is dedicated to how to make sure that same kid doesn't get left behind now that he's all grown up.   Sometimes people just have to be left behind for the greater good.   And while that sucks for them, you can only do so much to make sure they're part of the pack.

Yea, philosophical differences.  Assuming this kid/adult is actually trying.

How do we determine "effort"?

I don't know.  But I'm not going to want to implement a more regressive tax policy because of the people who aren't putting forth enough effort to improve their situations.  I'm considering the people who are trying to.

From the FAQ....(I can't post the graph fig 6 from my phone)


Is the FairTax progressive? Do the rich pay more and the poor pay less as a percentage of their spending?

Absolutely, as you can see in Figure 6 below -- where the graph shows annual expenditures for a family of four and the corresponding FairTax effective tax rates. The poor actually pay less than zero-percent retail sales tax on their spending. Much like with the earned income tax credit of today, the rebate may give them more money than they actually spend on retail taxes. Especially if they are frugal and buy mostly used products. On the other hand, the wealthy approach a maximum of 23-percent retail sales tax on their spending.

The FairTax is regressive relative to what we have now.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/27/2014 9:20:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2014 8:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2014 8:20:00 PM (view original):
What's the purpose of regulating wages?

Is this the USSR?

Wages are already regulated. As are a ton of other employer/employee things. Do you think you already live in Russia?

Tec: "What's the purpose of regulating wages?"

BL: "Wages are already regulated".

That's not an answer.  That's an avoidance.

I answered it before. Sorry if you didn't like the answer but I'm sure you don't want to keep asking the same question over and over again.

What was the answer?

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/27/2014 9:24:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/27/2014 9:14:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 6/26/2014 5:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/26/2014 5:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 6/26/2014 5:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/26/2014 4:54:00 PM (view original):
It's not a good excuse, I agree.

To me almost everything boils down to education (including financial, nutritional, etc). Educated people are wealthier, healthier, and make better life decisions. Solve that problem and most other problems are solved. The attention is unfortunately always directed elsewhere... Whether its wars, class, race, or minimum wage.

It's a great point.  How do we solve that problem? 

tough challenge considering how much influence the media (tv and internet). hollywood, and the music industry currently have on children. Rapping about money, cash, hoes doesn't necessarily scream 'education is cool'. its also tough because many families now a days need 2 working parents to do more than just get by so where is the discipline at home.

i'll have to give it some thought...

My local paper recently came out with the graduation rates of the schools in the area I live.  Where I live, the graduation rate was about 90%.  A neighboring school district, in an obviously worse off area, had a 45% graduation rate.  It will be these children who complain that they can't get by in life and need government assistance.  I assume that some of these kids need to work to bring in money at home, or need to deal drugs for the same reason.  But I would venture to guess that doesn't apply to the majority.  So A) Why are these kids dropping out of school and B) How do you convince them that staying in school and going to college (even community college) will lead to a more fulfilling life? I understand that I can't sympathize with their childhood, how they've been raised, and what many of them have been exposed to; it's an area that's much different than what I grew up in.

A) Kids drop out of school for the same reason most of us thought it might be a good idea.   School isn't fun.  Money in your pocket is fun.   16 y/o don't think about their life when they're 30.   So, without proper guidance from an adult(like a parent), they do what they think is better for today.

B)  You don't.  An adult in their life has to do it.

Of course, there are kids who are planning the next 50 years of their life but they are far from the majority.

Quick thought - if you have kids who aren't going to school you lose any government assistance you're currently getting.  I don't know how you prove that, but. yea.

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/27/2014 9:39:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 6/27/2014 9:22:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/27/2014 9:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2014 5:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/26/2014 5:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2014 5:13:00 PM (view original):
Honestly, our culture is almost like public school education.   They teach to the slowest kid in class so he doesn't get left behind.    This entire thread is dedicated to how to make sure that same kid doesn't get left behind now that he's all grown up.   Sometimes people just have to be left behind for the greater good.   And while that sucks for them, you can only do so much to make sure they're part of the pack.

Yea, philosophical differences.  Assuming this kid/adult is actually trying.

How do we determine "effort"?

I don't know.  But I'm not going to want to implement a more regressive tax policy because of the people who aren't putting forth enough effort to improve their situations.  I'm considering the people who are trying to.

From the FAQ....(I can't post the graph fig 6 from my phone)


Is the FairTax progressive? Do the rich pay more and the poor pay less as a percentage of their spending?

Absolutely, as you can see in Figure 6 below -- where the graph shows annual expenditures for a family of four and the corresponding FairTax effective tax rates. The poor actually pay less than zero-percent retail sales tax on their spending. Much like with the earned income tax credit of today, the rebate may give them more money than they actually spend on retail taxes. Especially if they are frugal and buy mostly used products. On the other hand, the wealthy approach a maximum of 23-percent retail sales tax on their spending.

The FairTax is regressive relative to what we have now.

Figure 6 says differently.

Heres another example from the FAQ about how its progressive..... Not regressive.

Is it fair for rich people to get the exact same FairTax rebate from the federal government as the poorest person in America?

Let's look at a billionaire under the FairTax -- if he spends $10,000,000 dollars he pays a tax of $2,300,000 and gets a prebate of $4,697 (assuming he is married and has no children). His effective tax rate as a percent of spending is 22.95 percent.

Now, let's look at a middle-income married couple with no children under the FairTax -- if they spend $50,000, they pay $6,803 net of their prebate for an effective tax rate of 13.6 percent. The effective tax rate increases as spending increases, but never exceeds 23 percent!

In contrast, if this same couple earns $50,000 in wages today under the current tax system, they pay $4,093 in income taxes and $3,825 in payroll taxes for a total of $7,918 in taxes (15.8 percent) -- a tax burden 14.1 percent higher than under the FairTax. In addition, their employer pays another $3,825 in payroll taxes. Most economists agree that the employer payroll tax is actually borne by employees in the form of lower wages. Looked at this way, this couple is paying $11,743 (23.5 percent) in taxes today, which doesn’t even include the hidden taxes they pay every time they make a purchase.

Finally, let’s look at a low-income couple that spends at the poverty level under the FairTax -- they pay no net FairTax at all. Today, under the income tax system, they not only pay 15 percent in payroll taxes, but they also pay hidden taxes -- arising from corporate taxes, private sector compliance costs, and payroll taxes passed on to consumers and embedded in the price of everything they buy.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/27/2014 9:41:00 AM (view original):
What was the answer?

Go back and read. I'm not going to answer again just because you keep asking over and over again.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/27/2014 10:15:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/27/2014 9:41:00 AM (view original):
What was the answer?

Go back and read. I'm not going to answer again just because you keep asking over and over again.

I've asked once, at 8:20pm last night.  You didn't answer then, and you're not answering now.

I'm not going back to read 114 pages trying to find an answer that you never gave to a question that had not yet been asked.

I'll just assume that you can't answer, or don't want to answer the question.  You want to limit the high end of salaries but have no rational explanation as to why.

Good job.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/27/2014 10:24:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/27/2014 10:15:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/27/2014 9:41:00 AM (view original):
What was the answer?

Go back and read. I'm not going to answer again just because you keep asking over and over again.

I've asked once, at 8:20pm last night.  You didn't answer then, and you're not answering now.

I'm not going back to read 114 pages trying to find an answer that you never gave to a question that had not yet been asked.

I'll just assume that you can't answer, or don't want to answer the question.  You want to limit the high end of salaries but have no rational explanation as to why.

Good job.

You can assume whatever you want, as long as you stop asking the same question over and over again after it has already been answered.

"Most economists agree..."

Posted by bad_luck on 6/27/2014 10:38:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/27/2014 10:24:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/27/2014 10:15:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/27/2014 9:41:00 AM (view original):
What was the answer?

Go back and read. I'm not going to answer again just because you keep asking over and over again.

I've asked once, at 8:20pm last night.  You didn't answer then, and you're not answering now.

I'm not going back to read 114 pages trying to find an answer that you never gave to a question that had not yet been asked.

I'll just assume that you can't answer, or don't want to answer the question.  You want to limit the high end of salaries but have no rational explanation as to why.

Good job.

You can assume whatever you want, as long as you stop asking the same question over and over again after it has already been answered.

Except you haven't answered.  And I only asked twice: once last night (when you avoided answering) and again this morning (where you are again avoiding answering).

Good job.

If you wish, feel free to point out where I asked the question prior to last night.

I'll wait here.