Check yourself:

[kriden]

http://www.isidewith.com/

iSideWith is a new app that shows which political candidates you side with based on the issues selected most important to you.

[globaleconomicollaps]

Re: Check yourself:

http://www.isidewith.com/

iSideWith is a new app that shows which political candidates you side with based on the issues selected most important to you.

looks like I'm a supported of three guys I've never heard of:
Jill Stein 92%
Gary Johnson 91%
rocky Anderson 79%

Who?

[shiny!]

Re: Check yourself:

Gary Johnson is a former governor of New Mexico and businessman running for president on the Libertarian ticket. He's a good guy:

Gary Johnson on the Issues:

Maintain a strong national defense but end the Wars, including the War on Drugs

Protect civil liberties and private property rights

Government neutrality on personal issues such as marriage and abortion.

Repeal the Patriot Act and have the TSA take a risk-based approach

Reduce the Federal government by returning control of most programs to the States. Government spends too much because it does too much.

Abolish the IRS. End the Income Tax, the Corporate Tax and Capital Gains Tax.

Replace with the Fair Tax

Audit the FED

Simplify legal immigration. Stopping the War on Drugs will eliminate most criminal activity around the borders.

No government regulation or taxation of the Internet

Allow Interstate competition and mandate price transparency among health insurers

States control and admister Medicaid via block grants

Eliminate the Dept of Education, returning control to State and Local governments. The Dept of Ed gives states only $0.11 of every dollar it collects but causes 80% of schools' admistrative paperwork.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Check yourself:

The "fair tax" is neither fair nor feasible. It is a tax on consumption and is highly regressive. The dynastic billionaire families would embrace it, but they aren't paying much tax already.

26 of the largest corporations in America paid their CEO's more money than they paid in federal taxes. US tax policy is absurd, but the "fair tax" isn't the solution.

[rjwjr]

Re: Check yourself:

86pct Gary Johnson
79pct Obama
74pct Romney

These results probably help explain why I switched from a registered republican to NPA, non-party affiliated, a few years ago.

[charliebrown]

Re: Check yourself:

I'm 85, 83, 81, 65 Romney, Johnson, Goode, Obama. I live in Illinois that will go for Obama and is a winner take all state. ergo, I am disenfrancised. Since my vote doesn't count I think I will probably go for Johnson. I will have to read his position papers first.

[shiny!]

Re: Check yourself:

The "fair tax" is neither fair nor feasible. It is a tax on consumption and is highly regressive. The dynastic billionaire families would embrace it, but they aren't paying much tax already.

26 of the largest corporations in America paid their CEO's more money than they paid in federal taxes. US tax policy is absurd, but the "fair tax" isn't the solution.

The Fair Tax would have a monthly "Prebate" that would cover the estimated taxes paid on purchases. Those living at the poverty level and below would essentially pay no tax. Here are the details from their FAQ:

FAIR TAX FAQ:

Under the FairTax, all Americans consume what they see as their necessities of life free of tax. While permitting no exemptions, the FairTax (HR25/S13) provides a monthly universal prebate to ensure that each family unit can consume tax free at or beyond the poverty level, with the overall effect of making the FairTax progressive in application. There is no marriage penalty as the couple gets twice the amount that a single adult receives.
While everyone pays the same tax rate at the cash register, the prebate results in effective tax rates (annual taxes paid divided by annual spending) that increase as the level of spending increases a progressive tax rate structure. For example, a person spending at the poverty level has a 0% effective tax rate, whereas someone spending at twice the poverty level has an effective tax rate of 11.5%, and so on.


¹The annual consumption allowance is based on the 2012 DHHS Poverty Guidelines as published in the Federal Register, Jan. 26, 2012. To eliminate the marriage penalty, the couple amount is twice the individual amount, to which $3,960 is added for each child. The annual prebate equals 23% of the annual consumption allowance.

and this:

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!

	FairTax	Current tax
Expenditures = income	$50,000	$50,000
Net tax	$6,803	$7,918
Effective tax rate	13.6%	15.8%

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.

The Fair Tax would restore our privacy from an invasive IRS. Imagine never having to file income taxes and be subjected to an IRS audit ever again! Twenty years ago the Republicans' Contract With America promised us a simplified income tax that could be filled out on a postcard. Once they got elected we never heard about it again. Our current tax code is too enormously complicated to fix- it needs to be chucked in the trash bin.

Shall we wait another twenty years in hopes for a perfect solution? It'll never come. The Libertarian motto has long been "Utopia is not an option." While the Fair Tax may not be perfect, it would be orders of magnitude better than what we have now.

[c1ue]

Re: Check yourself:

The problem with the FairTax is that it isn't fair. It is just a way for those who really makes tons of money to head off any attempts to increase the present (absurdly) low level of taxation.

[shiny!]

Re: Check yourself:

The problem with the FairTax is that it isn't fair. It is just a way for those who really makes tons of money to head off any attempts to increase the present (absurdly) low level of taxation.

The uber-wealthy are going to come out ahead no matter what. Even if 100% of their wealth was confiscated as taxes it wouldn't make a dent in our current debt. If my choice is to stick with the current INSANE and INSANELY INVASIVE system just so the wealthy might get stuck with higher taxes (which they'll find a loophole for anyway), or switch to a system that respects my privacy and has me and middle-class people paying less, I'll choose to switch even if it isn't 100% fair.

Eliminating corporate taxes, payroll taxes and capital gains taxes would be hugely beneficial for the economy. I'm not so bitter about the wealthy not paying their "fair share" that I'm willing to cut off my nose to spite my face.

[charliebrown]

Re: Check yourself:

+1, I go there too. I'm always afraid of having the IRS come after me, even though I try to do everything right.

3 years ago, a clerical error on there part had me owing them 8K. Three letters and months of time got us down to sub $500. which was something they found after the 8K that I forgot.

Have some charitble deductions, stock options at work, own DBC and all of a sudden you have a complex tax situation. You can pay someone who might get your taxes wrong a few hundred dollars. But in my small potatoes investments the few hundred dollars is half the return of said investments.

Additionally I am spending one to two days filling out my returns and making sure everything is OK. What a waste.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Check yourself:

I'm 85, 83, 81, 65 Romney, Johnson, Goode, Obama. I live in Illinois that will go for Obama and is a winner take all state. ergo, I am disenfrancised. Since my vote doesn't count I think I will probably go for Johnson. I will have to read his position papers first.

Just read the details of that site carefully. I went through it and didn't click "choose another option" at all. It changes everything.

For instance, I believe Stein's answer to Obamacare was "No, because we should have a single payer system." That means that someone who believes "No, because there should never be interference with private insurance companies" would end up agreeing with her if they just clicked "No." Therefore, they would look like they had more in common than they really did.

Long story short - read the candidate's responses carefully and gauge your percentages appropriately.

Because it can be confusing.

[flintlock]

Re: Check yourself:

The "fair tax" is neither fair nor feasible. It is a tax on consumption and is highly regressive. The dynastic billionaire families would embrace it, but they aren't paying much tax already.

26 of the largest corporations in America paid their CEO's more money than they paid in federal taxes. US tax policy is absurd, but the "fair tax" isn't the solution.

You do know that the poor would get a rebate check, meaning they would pay zero taxes right? This by far is the most misunderstood part of the "fair tax". I still have problems with it, but the "regressive" argument is not one of them. Most arguments against the fair tax also ignore lower prices expected due to removal of the " imbedded" tax. Of course all their claims are debatable.

The real argument possibly should be, " it won't raise enough revenue." Or it makes everyone dependent on a check from the government every month. I'm sure there are others.

What I find amusing is the number of people who would want to continue an inefficient, wasteful, overly complex tax system just to "punish" a few wealthy. These same wealthy use the current system to pay little or no tax. Certainly less than 23%. Even a very wealthy man like Romney admitted to paying less than 15%. In other words, they'd rather screw us all than see any rich guy pay once cent less. Most people simply have not read the book and do not understand the details of the tax.

BUT.....

There are concerns. For one, will it created a huge black market? Who will enforce this if a goal is to eliminate the IRS? What goods and services will be taxed? Will independent contractors have to collect? Do I want to become a tax collector for the state? Can our "consumption" based economy survive a sales tax that encourages savings instead? Will barter become the norm?

My guess is people will find a way to game the Fair Tax and escape paying on all they should. BUT... Will the potential economic gain compensate for that loss? Far too complex for anyone to predict accurately.

Monthly tax rebate

1 person	$10,890	$2,505	couple	$21,780	$5,009
and 1 child	$14,710	$3,383	and 1 child	$25,600	$5,888
and 2 children	$18,530	$4,262	and 2 children	$29,420	$6,767
and 3 children	$22,350	$5,141	and 3 children	$33,240	$7,645
and 4 children	$26,170	$6,019	and 4 children	$37,060	$8,524
and 5 children	$29,990	$6,898	and 5 children	$40,880	$9,402
and 6 children	$33,810	$7,776	and 6 children	$44,700	$10,281
and 7 children	$37,630	$8,655	and 7 children	$48,520	$11,160
The annual consumption allowance is based on the 2011 DHHS Poverty Guidelines as published in theFederal Register, January 20, 2011, p. 3638. There is no marriage penalty as the couple gets twice the amount that a single adult receives. For each additional child above 7, add $3,820 to the annual consumption allowance, $878 to the annual rebate, and $73 to the monthly rebate amount. The annual consumption allowance is the amount of spending that is "untaxed" under the FairTax. Note: Alaska and Hawaii have different poverty levels and would have different FairTax rebate amounts.

Under the FairTax, family households of lawful U.S. residents would be eligible to receive a "Family Consumption Allowance" (FCA) based on family size (regardless of income) that is equal to the estimated total FairTax paid on poverty level spending according to the poverty guidelines published by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.^[1] The FCA is a tax rebate (known as a "prebate" as it would be an advance) paid in twelve monthly installments, adjusted for inflation. The rebate is meant to eliminate the taxation of household necessities and make the plan progressive.^[4] Households would register once a year with their sales tax administering authority, providing the names and social security numbers of each household member.^[1] The Social Security Administration would disburse the monthly rebate payments in the form of a paper check via U.S. Mail, an electronic funds transfer to a bank account, or a "smartcard" that can be used like a debit card.^[1]
Opponents of the plan criticize this tax rebate due to its costs. Economists at the Beacon Hill Institute estimated the overall rebate cost to be $489 billion (assuming 100% participation).^[34] In addition, economist Bruce Bartlett has argued that the rebate would create a large opportunity for fraud,^[35] treats children disparately, and would constitute a welfare payment regardless of need.^[36]
The President's Advisory Panel for Federal Tax Reform cited the rebate as one of their chief concerns when analyzing their national sales tax, stating that it would be the largest entitlement program in American history, and contending that it would "make most American families dependent on monthly checks from the federal government".^[8][37] Estimated by the advisory panel at approximately $600 billion, "the Prebate program would cost more than all budgeted spending in 2006 on the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, and Interior combined."^[8] Proponents point out that income tax deductions, tax preferences, loopholes, credits, etc. under the current system was estimated at $945 billion by the Joint Committee on Taxation.^[34]They argue this is $456 billion more than the FairTax "entitlement" (tax refund) would spend to cover each person's tax expenses up to the poverty level. In addition, it was estimated for 2005 that the Internal Revenue Service was already sending out $270 billion in refund checks.^[34]

[flintlock]

Re: Check yourself:

I'm not so bitter about the wealthy not paying their "fair share" that I'm willing to cut off my nose to spite my face.

Bingo! But unfortunately, so many want to see things as a zero sum game, where there can only be a winner and a loser. This in a nutshell is the problem with the world.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Check yourself:

Thailand has a simple tax code. (I have no idea about how pervasive tax evasion is.) Basically, you pay 10 % on the first 500,000 baht, 20 % on the next, and 30 % on everything after that. Income from dividends, rental property, and wages are all treated the same.

In the US, taxing the wealthy at the same rate as the middle class would go a long way towards wiping out the national deficit.

A 50 % tax on inheritance over three million seems very fair to me.

But, in the end it’s not the amount of money extracted from the rich that matters. It’s the political influence the tax code allows when they are paying next to nothing.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Check yourself:

I can rip the fair tax apart and explain why it's awful off the top of my head without even mentioning how many extra solid gold helicopters Bill Gates would get for Christmas if it passed:

1

The rebates ("pre-bates") happen after money is spent, but are supposed to be sent out monthly. They are dependent on family size as much as income. So somebody has to send out monthly checks, verify monthly purchases (or reconcile them at the end of every year), and verify family size.

I'm not sure how this is necessarily all that much simpler than the current system. In fact, the monthly check "pre-bate" system probably would make it far more complex to administrate.

That means more IRS employees, more public employees, and generally more government.


2

A single male with no children making $20k per year would be entitled to a $2,509 rebate under the fair tax. But he would pay $6,000 in sales taxes. There's a gap of $3,491 there. That's his tax liability.

Under the current system, his tax liability is $1,672. The fair tax !!!!!CONFISCATES!!!!! $1,819 more from him. (That is the last time I'll use the word. We all should stop. If Ben Franklin knew we'd always have to deal with death and taxes, you'd think we'd get over it 300 years later).

This means it costs the single dude with no kids who makes $20,000 per year $1,819 more per year under the "fair" tax than under the current system.
If he had four or more children, the same dude would pay nothing under the fair tax. He also pays nothing under the current system.


3


Think of it like this: You basically get $200 per head per month for grown-ups and $100 per head per month for children no matter how much money you make in a "pre-bate." That's it. Do you spend more than $600 per month? Then screw you. You get to pay the fair tax.

Keep in mind, if $600 seems like a lot, that you've got rent and gasoline, and oil, and electricity, and water, and trash, and car repairs etc., and phone and every other bill to pay by yourself.

And now your $1,000 rent costs $1,300. And your $50 tank of gas costs $65. And your $800 car repair bill costs $1,040. In fairtax land, spending $600 per month is like spending $450 per month in normal land.

That's a bit over $100 per week. You will spend at least twice that. Even eating ramen and living with roommates (hence my $20k dude example).


4


It also taxes government expenditures while leaving business expenditures exempt.

This adds 30% to the cost of doing business for states and municipalities. Which would make other taxes go up.

It also means your $100 fee at the DMV will become a $130 fee.

Pass the fairtax and I guarantee a minimum of a 30% property tax hike will be the result. Don't say I didn't warn you.

And all of this is assuming that it is constitutional for the Federal government to impose direct consumption taxes on State and Local governments, of which I have serious doubts.


5

It's the most FIRE friendly tax I've ever seen.

The sales tax rate goes down to 0% when you're buying stock or derivatives or other financial, insurance or real estate products, which somehow are always the only things universally exempted from sales taxes.

This will result in the most egregious financialized bubble economy the world has ever seen by orders of magnitude. With everything else costing 30% more, and capital gains eliminated, money will flood into financial markets, and not just equities.

Buy something from the productive economy or pay for government services, and you get whacked for 30%. Buy something from FIRE and it's 0%.

I wonder who came up with the FairTax? Who's pushing it?

Also, business purchases are exempt from sales tax. So buy that champaign on the corporate account and pay 0% for your business lunch, while the sucker getting a cheap beer after a day of real labor pays 30% on it.




King George himself wouldn't have the gall to call this a "fair" tax.