I wonder if any of the proponents of the Fair Tax or a National Sales Tax can provide any ideas as to why after 15 years there has been no real traction? This bill was introduced in 1999 and has NEVER gained any traction. Every once in a while a political middle weight will get behind it, but ultimately they decide to stop promoting it. 

BL linked a Rand Paul article which is one example of this.

Any ideas?

Posted by mchalesarmy on 6/12/2014 1:57:00 AM (view original):
I wonder if any of the proponents of the Fair Tax or a National Sales Tax can provide any ideas as to why after 15 years there has been no real traction? This bill was introduced in 1999 and has NEVER gained any traction. Every once in a while a political middle weight will get behind it, but ultimately they decide to stop promoting it. 

BL linked a Rand Paul article which is one example of this.

Any ideas?

It kills lobbyists (tax lobbyists, tax preparers, tax shelter promoters). Closes tax loopholes. Fallout from initial job loss (IRS closure, Tax Accountants, etc). Major overhaul to the tax system takes guts - something most politicians lack - especially when their major donors don't 100% support it.

I'm dissappointed when I hear a candidate bring up he fair tax but they talk about making exceptions and lowering the sales taxes for food, etc. That's a BAD idea since it opens up the floodgates to other industries lobbying for the same (energy, etc). One tax rate for all...no exceptions. That's the right way to do this.

I think this sums up why politicians hate it:

"The FairTax is highly visible. And because there is only one tax rate, it will be very hard for Congress to adopt the typical divide-and-conquer, hide-and-disguise strategy employed today to ratchet up the burden gradually, by manipulating the income tax code "

They lose an avenue for kickbacks. That's at least my thoughts.

Posted by mchalesarmy on 6/12/2014 1:55:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mchalesarmy on 6/12/2014 1:22:00 AM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 6/12/2014 1:13:00 AM (view original):
So, if I work hard and earn, say, $150,000, I have to give up $45,000 (60% of $75K), so on my marginal income increase of $75K, I only keep $30K.

So, I earn twice as much, but only show 40% additional income.  

And that's incentive for doubling my output?  If you hypertax marginal income, each additional dollar of gross income realizes less marginal discretionary income.  Put in hourly terms I would make roughly $37.50 an hour for the first six months, and $15.00 an hour for the rest of the year, putting my earning power just a little more than minimum wage.

That was just using the numbers made up by tec.

No one is actually arguing for that. 

The tax rate of 70% would be for money earned over a number like 1M or something along those lines.

In fact, when the tax rate first jumped to 63% in 1932 the top bracket was for those earning 1M+ which in today's dollars is 17.3M+.
Then in '36 the highest bracket was for 5M+ (85+M today).
In '42 the highest bracket dropped all the way down to 200K+ (2.9M today).
It stayed roughly in this ballpark until the Reagan tax cut in 1982 when the top bracket became $60,600 (148K in today's $).
Bush 1 dropped the rate even further to 28% and the top bracket was set at 23,900K + (which is roughly 48K today).

I have advocated for creating more brackets at the top and increasing those rates fractionally all the way to a high of at least 50% on every dollar over $100M. Nowhere near the 70%+ that we had for almost 50 years, but by doing this you could not only reduce the tax burden on the lower wage earners enough that they would stimulate the economy, but that stimulus to the economy would also benefit a good portion of the top 20% who have more customers buying their goods and services. 

There really isn't a downside to at least trying it for a few years.

Yeah, no downside if you're not the one being taxed. 

Word on the street is that they're rich, they can afford it, and they won't miss it.

At the end of the day, if you believe one should be taxed at a higher percentage because they make more, I don't think anything is going to change your mind.   Unless, of course, the line is drawn at your paycheck. 

I think it's safe to assume no one taking part in this is making the magical 400k(which is a shitton in Alabama but not so much in NYC).   But I imagine everyone is making 40k(still a nice payday in Alabama but hardly a "living wage" in NYC).    Poverty level, for a family of 3, is somewhere near 20k.    Now, if the line was drawn at 30k(no taxes!!!!) and 70% after that, I think some opinions would change.   Really ******* quickly.

Posted by moy23 on 6/11/2014 9:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/11/2014 11:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/11/2014 11:48:00 AM (view original):
Yeah, we have a philosophical difference.

I'll go back to charging the 10m a year guy $200 for the steak I'll eat for $18.99.   He'll miss that $200 less than I'll miss $18.99 and it will be good for the economy.   The difference is the steak would be voluntary while taxes are not.

If you don't understand why that's ****** up, I'm not sure how I can explain it any better.

Maybe you pay $18.99 for the steak and they sell the same exact steak to the next guy in line for $5.   If you say "Wouldn't bother me because he obviously makes less than me", I'll be forced to call you a ******* liar.

I think the difference is that the guy who doesn't want to spend $18 on dinner can buy something else for $5.

Americans deserve roads and bridges that are sufficient for driving on. They deserve a military that they know will protect them. They deserve a basic education for their children. So what's the best way to collect money for those things?

i wanted to respond to this earlier....

Affording infrastructure and education is not the problem... In 2013 they cost the fed a mere $91 and $85 billion respectively. Police, Fire, etc cost the Federal Govt $34 billion in 2013.

Its paying for govt pensions ($870 billion) and healthcare ($856 billion) that has spiraled out of control. Even Welfare ($397 billion) which includes unemployment is a pittance compared to those massive bills.

I'm not arguing whether or not tax money is used efficiently (and you left out the military). But taxes are collected for a reason, and a comparison to "I want a steak dinner" is an apples to oranges comparison.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/12/2014 8:05:00 AM (view original):
At the end of the day, if you believe one should be taxed at a higher percentage because they make more, I don't think anything is going to change your mind.   Unless, of course, the line is drawn at your paycheck. 

I think it's safe to assume no one taking part in this is making the magical 400k(which is a shitton in Alabama but not so much in NYC).   But I imagine everyone is making 40k(still a nice payday in Alabama but hardly a "living wage" in NYC).    Poverty level, for a family of 3, is somewhere near 20k.    Now, if the line was drawn at 30k(no taxes!!!!) and 70% after that, I think some opinions would change.   Really ******* quickly.

We are taxed at a higher percentage because we make more.  If the guys making 30K were charged at the same percentage as we were, that money would have more of an effect than it does on us.

The steak dinner was a simple comparison designed to prove that no one would not be happy if charged more than the next guy in line because he had more money. 

If it works better for you, you are buying a toy for your son/nephew/whatever.    The store does not have prices on the items.   You pick up a GI Joe and ask "How much?"   Clerk says "How much you got?"   You respond "I only have a $50 bill."   "You're in luck, it's fifty bucks!!!"   You pass.    As you begin to walk away, the same process begins again except the next guy says "I have $10."  Clerk screams "DEAL!!!"    Did you have to have the GI Joe?  No.  So maybe it's not the worst thing.  But imagine it's every store and they know how much you have before you walk in.    That's the IRS and the tax system that taxes people a higher percentage simply because they make more.

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/12/2014 8:54:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/12/2014 8:05:00 AM (view original):
At the end of the day, if you believe one should be taxed at a higher percentage because they make more, I don't think anything is going to change your mind.   Unless, of course, the line is drawn at your paycheck. 

I think it's safe to assume no one taking part in this is making the magical 400k(which is a shitton in Alabama but not so much in NYC).   But I imagine everyone is making 40k(still a nice payday in Alabama but hardly a "living wage" in NYC).    Poverty level, for a family of 3, is somewhere near 20k.    Now, if the line was drawn at 30k(no taxes!!!!) and 70% after that, I think some opinions would change.   Really ******* quickly.

We are taxed at a higher percentage because we make more.  If the guys making 30K were charged at the same percentage as we were, that money would have more of an effect than it does on us.

Every monetary decision one makes has a different effect than it does on someone who makes more/less. 

Honestly, the "effects them less" is a goddam retarded argument.    This dude says it's stupid.

So you're saying either the poor should pay more or the rich should pay less.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/12/2014 9:25:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/12/2014 8:54:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/12/2014 8:05:00 AM (view original):
At the end of the day, if you believe one should be taxed at a higher percentage because they make more, I don't think anything is going to change your mind.   Unless, of course, the line is drawn at your paycheck. 

I think it's safe to assume no one taking part in this is making the magical 400k(which is a shitton in Alabama but not so much in NYC).   But I imagine everyone is making 40k(still a nice payday in Alabama but hardly a "living wage" in NYC).    Poverty level, for a family of 3, is somewhere near 20k.    Now, if the line was drawn at 30k(no taxes!!!!) and 70% after that, I think some opinions would change.   Really ******* quickly.

We are taxed at a higher percentage because we make more.  If the guys making 30K were charged at the same percentage as we were, that money would have more of an effect than it does on us.

Every monetary decision one makes has a different effect than it does on someone who makes more/less. 

Honestly, the "effects them less" is a goddam retarded argument.    This dude says it's stupid.

I'll even add that two guys making exactly the same amount can have a different effect.   I make 20k and have 4 children.   You make 20k and live at home.   Are you telling me our dollars have the same value to us?     And don't even get me started on where we live.   I live in NYC, you live in Bumfuck, MS.    20k is not 20k.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/12/2014 9:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/12/2014 9:25:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/12/2014 8:54:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/12/2014 8:05:00 AM (view original):
At the end of the day, if you believe one should be taxed at a higher percentage because they make more, I don't think anything is going to change your mind.   Unless, of course, the line is drawn at your paycheck. 

I think it's safe to assume no one taking part in this is making the magical 400k(which is a shitton in Alabama but not so much in NYC).   But I imagine everyone is making 40k(still a nice payday in Alabama but hardly a "living wage" in NYC).    Poverty level, for a family of 3, is somewhere near 20k.    Now, if the line was drawn at 30k(no taxes!!!!) and 70% after that, I think some opinions would change.   Really ******* quickly.

We are taxed at a higher percentage because we make more.  If the guys making 30K were charged at the same percentage as we were, that money would have more of an effect than it does on us.

Every monetary decision one makes has a different effect than it does on someone who makes more/less. 

Honestly, the "effects them less" is a goddam retarded argument.    This dude says it's stupid.

I'll even add that two guys making exactly the same amount can have a different effect.   I make 20k and have 4 children.   You make 20k and live at home.   Are you telling me our dollars have the same value to us?     And don't even get me started on where we live.   I live in NYC, you live in Bumfuck, MS.    20k is not 20k.

Right, when you have children, you pay less in taxes.  Dependents. 

I understand you think it's a stupid argument.  I'd argue it's not, that it's more efficient for our country.

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/12/2014 9:38:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/12/2014 9:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/12/2014 9:25:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/12/2014 8:54:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/12/2014 8:05:00 AM (view original):
At the end of the day, if you believe one should be taxed at a higher percentage because they make more, I don't think anything is going to change your mind.   Unless, of course, the line is drawn at your paycheck. 

I think it's safe to assume no one taking part in this is making the magical 400k(which is a shitton in Alabama but not so much in NYC).   But I imagine everyone is making 40k(still a nice payday in Alabama but hardly a "living wage" in NYC).    Poverty level, for a family of 3, is somewhere near 20k.    Now, if the line was drawn at 30k(no taxes!!!!) and 70% after that, I think some opinions would change.   Really ******* quickly.

We are taxed at a higher percentage because we make more.  If the guys making 30K were charged at the same percentage as we were, that money would have more of an effect than it does on us.

Every monetary decision one makes has a different effect than it does on someone who makes more/less. 

Honestly, the "effects them less" is a goddam retarded argument.    This dude says it's stupid.

I'll even add that two guys making exactly the same amount can have a different effect.   I make 20k and have 4 children.   You make 20k and live at home.   Are you telling me our dollars have the same value to us?     And don't even get me started on where we live.   I live in NYC, you live in Bumfuck, MS.    20k is not 20k.

Right, when you have children, you pay less in taxes.  Dependents. 

I understand you think it's a stupid argument.  I'd argue it's not, that it's more efficient for our country.

I'll assume you have no idea what a child actually costs.    I don't either but I can guarantee you that a guy making 20k with 4 children is in a much tougher financial situation than the guy making 20k and living with mom.     Do you disagree?

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/12/2014 9:40:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/12/2014 9:38:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/12/2014 9:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/12/2014 9:25:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/12/2014 8:54:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/12/2014 8:05:00 AM (view original):
At the end of the day, if you believe one should be taxed at a higher percentage because they make more, I don't think anything is going to change your mind.   Unless, of course, the line is drawn at your paycheck. 

I think it's safe to assume no one taking part in this is making the magical 400k(which is a shitton in Alabama but not so much in NYC).   But I imagine everyone is making 40k(still a nice payday in Alabama but hardly a "living wage" in NYC).    Poverty level, for a family of 3, is somewhere near 20k.    Now, if the line was drawn at 30k(no taxes!!!!) and 70% after that, I think some opinions would change.   Really ******* quickly.

We are taxed at a higher percentage because we make more.  If the guys making 30K were charged at the same percentage as we were, that money would have more of an effect than it does on us.

Every monetary decision one makes has a different effect than it does on someone who makes more/less. 

Honestly, the "effects them less" is a goddam retarded argument.    This dude says it's stupid.

I'll even add that two guys making exactly the same amount can have a different effect.   I make 20k and have 4 children.   You make 20k and live at home.   Are you telling me our dollars have the same value to us?     And don't even get me started on where we live.   I live in NYC, you live in Bumfuck, MS.    20k is not 20k.

Right, when you have children, you pay less in taxes.  Dependents. 

I understand you think it's a stupid argument.  I'd argue it's not, that it's more efficient for our country.

I'll assume you have no idea what a child actually costs.    I don't either but I can guarantee you that a guy making 20k with 4 children is in a much tougher financial situation than the guy making 20k and living with mom.     Do you disagree?

Of course, and he pays less in taxes.  Am I wrong?  

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/12/2014 9:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/12/2014 9:40:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/12/2014 9:38:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/12/2014 9:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/12/2014 9:25:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/12/2014 8:54:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/12/2014 8:05:00 AM (view original):
At the end of the day, if you believe one should be taxed at a higher percentage because they make more, I don't think anything is going to change your mind.   Unless, of course, the line is drawn at your paycheck. 

I think it's safe to assume no one taking part in this is making the magical 400k(which is a shitton in Alabama but not so much in NYC).   But I imagine everyone is making 40k(still a nice payday in Alabama but hardly a "living wage" in NYC).    Poverty level, for a family of 3, is somewhere near 20k.    Now, if the line was drawn at 30k(no taxes!!!!) and 70% after that, I think some opinions would change.   Really ******* quickly.

We are taxed at a higher percentage because we make more.  If the guys making 30K were charged at the same percentage as we were, that money would have more of an effect than it does on us.

Every monetary decision one makes has a different effect than it does on someone who makes more/less. 

Honestly, the "effects them less" is a goddam retarded argument.    This dude says it's stupid.

I'll even add that two guys making exactly the same amount can have a different effect.   I make 20k and have 4 children.   You make 20k and live at home.   Are you telling me our dollars have the same value to us?     And don't even get me started on where we live.   I live in NYC, you live in Bumfuck, MS.    20k is not 20k.

Right, when you have children, you pay less in taxes.  Dependents. 

I understand you think it's a stupid argument.  I'd argue it's not, that it's more efficient for our country.

I'll assume you have no idea what a child actually costs.    I don't either but I can guarantee you that a guy making 20k with 4 children is in a much tougher financial situation than the guy making 20k and living with mom.     Do you disagree?

Of course, and he pays less in taxes.  Am I wrong?  

I thought we were talking about the effect of a dollar expenditure(tax or purchase) on individuals.    Did we change the subject?