I think the fair tax does include rent:

http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/the-trouble-with-the-fair-tax/2011/08/24/gIQA4KvnbJ_blog.html

"The tax also has enforcement issues. Many difficult-to-tax items that traditional sales taxes exclude would be subject to the fair tax, including rent, health care..."

Posted by bad_luck on 6/27/2014 11:06:00 PM (view original):
I think the fair tax does include rent:

http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/the-trouble-with-the-fair-tax/2011/08/24/gIQA4KvnbJ_blog.html

"The tax also has enforcement issues. Many difficult-to-tax items that traditional sales taxes exclude would be subject to the fair tax, including rent, health care..."

you still didnt answer.... can you find a way for the poor to buy furniture, clothes, and a car with 0% income tax and 0% sales tax today under the current system?

also - so which are you moving to... the republic of america or the democratic states of america in my example?

Posted by bad_luck on 6/27/2014 11:06:00 PM (view original):
I think the fair tax does include rent:

http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/the-trouble-with-the-fair-tax/2011/08/24/gIQA4KvnbJ_blog.html

"The tax also has enforcement issues. Many difficult-to-tax items that traditional sales taxes exclude would be subject to the fair tax, including rent, health care..."

enforcement.... from the FAQ.


Does the FairTax improve compliance and reduce evasion when compared to the current income tax?

The old aphorism that nothing is certain except death and taxes should be modified to include tax evasion. Tax evasion is chronic under any system so complex as to be incomprehensible. As a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), tax evasion in 2001 is beyond 2.6 percent, compared to 1.6 percent in 1991. This represents over 16 percent of taxes due. Almost 40 percent of the public, according to the IRS, is out of compliance with the present tax system, mostly unintentionally due to the enormous complexity of the present system. These IRS figures do not include taxes lost on illegal sources of income with a criminal economy estimated at a trillion dollars. All this, despite a major enforcement effort and assessment of tens of millions of civil penalties on American taxpayers in an effort to force compliance with the tax system. Disrespect for the tax system and the law has reached dangerous levels and makes a system based on taxpayer self-assessment less and less viable.

The FairTax reduces rather than increases the problem of tax evasion. The increased fairness, transparency, and legitimacy of the system induces more compliance. The roughly 90-percent reduction in filers enables tax administrators more narrowly and effectively to address noncompliance and increases the likelihood of tax evasion discovery. The relative simplicity of the FairTax promotes compliance. Businesses need answer only one question to determine the tax due: How much was sold to consumers? Finally, because tax rates decrease, tax evasion is less profitable; and because of the dramatic reduction in the number of tax filers, tax evaders are more easily monitored and caught under the FairTax system.

I don't really care about enforcement. I quoted that line to show that rent would be taxed. 30 cents for every dollar

Posted by bad_luck on 6/27/2014 11:30:00 PM (view original):
I don't really care about enforcement. I quoted that line to show that rent would be taxed. 30 cents for every dollar

so what - so will housekeepers, personal chefs, and au pairs.... your point? get a roommate - you are poor. problem solved. Your $1000 rent which would now be $1230 / 2 with a roommate is $615 per person.....and each person gets a $210 prebate.

Family of 4 kids - can't get a roommate - your $1230 rent is offset with a $749 monthly prebate. By used clothes for the kids, etc at 0% and you'll be better off here than if you were getting taxed 15% from your payroll on every dollar and then retaxed between 7-50% in sales taxes when you spend that money.

Putting that last scenario in real numbers...

$749 prebate
-$230 rent tax
=$519 left over.... Buy used clothes furniture etc at 0%
Leaves you with enough money to buy $2256 ($519/.23) in food, smokes, and gas without paying a single cent in taxes.

I don't even spend $2256 monthly on gas and food.... Not even close. In this scenario this family of 4 could truly have a negative tax rate, meaning less than 0%. Nowhere can you get that now. So if you truly advocate for the poor you can now clearly see how this plan is better for them than anything we have today.






i take it you choose the democratic states of america, right?

Posted by tecwrg on 6/27/2014 10:52:00 PM (view original):
Didn't you say that paying tax was "part of the deal of living here"?

Yes but it doesn't apply to everyone.

BL is all over the place here.

First, he suggests that we raise taxes on the wealthy since we need more tax money and because "they're rich and they can afford it, and their last dollars have diminished marginal utility" (a phrase he probably picked up somewhere from a blogger because, like a child with a new toy, he repeated it for around 30 pages until the novelty wore off).  

Then, he does a 180 and suggests that we severely restrict the income of the high wage earners (because Bill James said so, reminiscent of how Son of Sam was ordered to kill by his neighbor's dog).  When it's pointed out that this would severely decrease the amount of tax dollar's collected from the wealthy since they'll be making a fraction of what they're currently making, he's say that's OK because we won't need to collect that much tax revenue in this new world order.  Magic, I guess.

At some point, he insists that paying tax was "part of the deal of living here", but balks at the fair tax proposal which would collect tax revenue in a far more equitable and efficient manner from everybody living here.

He's funny.  Like a clown.

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.

So this tax says if you are poor you deserve to be poor and should only buy used crap and quit whining. Great that's very fair.

Posted by crickett13 on 6/28/2014 8:37:00 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.

So this tax says if you are poor you deserve to be poor and should only buy used crap and quit whining. Great that's very fair.

where in there did it say the poor 'deserve' to be poor.

how do you expect one to get our of poverty if they are always buying new stuff? the answer is they will not. poor spending choices keep people poor. the beauty of the fair tax is the poor can spend their prebate any way they want... on booze, smokes, new clothes.

Though those (booze and smokes, in particular) would be poor choices (no pun intended).

Posted by moy23 on 6/28/2014 5:38:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/27/2014 11:30:00 PM (view original):
I don't really care about enforcement. I quoted that line to show that rent would be taxed. 30 cents for every dollar

so what - so will housekeepers, personal chefs, and au pairs.... your point? get a roommate - you are poor. problem solved. Your $1000 rent which would now be $1230 / 2 with a roommate is $615 per person.....and each person gets a $210 prebate.

Family of 4 kids - can't get a roommate - your $1230 rent is offset with a $749 monthly prebate. By used clothes for the kids, etc at 0% and you'll be better off here than if you were getting taxed 15% from your payroll on every dollar and then retaxed between 7-50% in sales taxes when you spend that money.

Putting that last scenario in real numbers...

$749 prebate
-$230 rent tax
=$519 left over.... Buy used clothes furniture etc at 0%
Leaves you with enough money to buy $2256 ($519/.23) in food, smokes, and gas without paying a single cent in taxes.

I don't even spend $2256 monthly on gas and food.... Not even close. In this scenario this family of 4 could truly have a negative tax rate, meaning less than 0%. Nowhere can you get that now. So if you truly advocate for the poor you can now clearly see how this plan is better for them than anything we have today.






i take it you choose the democratic states of america, right?

Problem solved? No, not really. There's a reason the fair tax isn't taken seriously, it's a joke.

It's a 30% (not 23) tax on everything that not only increases the tax burden on the poor, it leaves government revenue way short. The WaPo analysis found that we'd need a sales tax rate above 40% to match revenue, assuming that people didn't find ways to avoid the tax.

The fair tax is a gift to upper bracket taxpayers. Don't be so gullible.

Posted by crickett13 on 6/28/2014 8:37:00 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.

So this tax says if you are poor you deserve to be poor and should only buy used crap and quit whining. Great that's very fair.

Shouldn't you buy what you can afford?   Or do we live in some magical land where everyone gets a new Lamborghini every year?

Posted by tecwrg on 6/28/2014 8:02:00 AM (view original):
BL is all over the place here.

First, he suggests that we raise taxes on the wealthy since we need more tax money and because "they're rich and they can afford it, and their last dollars have diminished marginal utility" (a phrase he probably picked up somewhere from a blogger because, like a child with a new toy, he repeated it for around 30 pages until the novelty wore off).  

Then, he does a 180 and suggests that we severely restrict the income of the high wage earners (because Bill James said so, reminiscent of how Son of Sam was ordered to kill by his neighbor's dog).  When it's pointed out that this would severely decrease the amount of tax dollar's collected from the wealthy since they'll be making a fraction of what they're currently making, he's say that's OK because we won't need to collect that much tax revenue in this new world order.  Magic, I guess.

At some point, he insists that paying tax was "part of the deal of living here", but balks at the fair tax proposal which would collect tax revenue in a far more equitable and efficient manner from everybody living here.

He's funny.  Like a clown.

I think that sums up the last 60 pages.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/28/2014 11:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 6/28/2014 5:38:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/27/2014 11:30:00 PM (view original):
I don't really care about enforcement. I quoted that line to show that rent would be taxed. 30 cents for every dollar

so what - so will housekeepers, personal chefs, and au pairs.... your point? get a roommate - you are poor. problem solved. Your $1000 rent which would now be $1230 / 2 with a roommate is $615 per person.....and each person gets a $210 prebate.

Family of 4 kids - can't get a roommate - your $1230 rent is offset with a $749 monthly prebate. By used clothes for the kids, etc at 0% and you'll be better off here than if you were getting taxed 15% from your payroll on every dollar and then retaxed between 7-50% in sales taxes when you spend that money.

Putting that last scenario in real numbers...

$749 prebate
-$230 rent tax
=$519 left over.... Buy used clothes furniture etc at 0%
Leaves you with enough money to buy $2256 ($519/.23) in food, smokes, and gas without paying a single cent in taxes.

I don't even spend $2256 monthly on gas and food.... Not even close. In this scenario this family of 4 could truly have a negative tax rate, meaning less than 0%. Nowhere can you get that now. So if you truly advocate for the poor you can now clearly see how this plan is better for them than anything we have today.






i take it you choose the democratic states of america, right?

Problem solved? No, not really. There's a reason the fair tax isn't taken seriously, it's a joke.

It's a 30% (not 23) tax on everything that not only increases the tax burden on the poor, it leaves government revenue way short. The WaPo analysis found that we'd need a sales tax rate above 40% to match revenue, assuming that people didn't find ways to avoid the tax.

The fair tax is a gift to upper bracket taxpayers. Don't be so gullible.

Its 23%. If you by something for $1 you tack on 23 cents.

I get that you can play tricks with the #s but quite frankly that's just stupidity at its best. Chicago has a 12% sales tax but I don't try and flip that number around to try and inflate it to make a point.

The fair tax is not taken seriously because it severely limits the ways that politicians/lobbyists can manipulate the tax code for personal gains. That's why its not taken seriously. BP enjoys the tax break they get... So do many other companies.

Again, I don't care if it helps the upper tax brackets as long as it also helps the lower tax brackets. The fair tax helps everyone.... And that's a good thing, unless of course you hate the rich.

Funny thing is how the govt claims to be helping those in need but then taxes the goods they buy the most like booze, sugars, gambling, and smokes nearly 50%. Its beautifully crafted... And so many poor people buy into it hook line and sinker.