Yeah, I haven't read the book by Neal Boortz, but I checked out the webpage... http://www.fairtax.org/

I tend not disagree with Neal Boortz's views a lot, and I was sceptical going in... but I can't find anything outrageously bad about it. It's basically a tax on consumption rather than a tax on income. Am I missing anything? Anybody else's thoughts on the idea of Fair Tax?

FYI... "Fair Tax" is not "Flat Tax."

~fff - np: spot - spot I

We, at least have a mixture of both income tax and consumption tax. There are some problems with the latter: it tends to moralism (high tax on "bad" stuff), which may or may not be seen as a bad thing. The other thing is that most governments today tend to think that consumption should be increased, not decreased, as it creates jobs and so on (despite what this lifestyle is doing to our heads and the environment...).

The main thing with taxes is to get into one's head is that we need more of them, not less.

Patrik

i agree with those concerns, patrik.

it might be a good way to ween ourselves a little though. but then once the purse emptied some, the republicans would shout they were right all along. the pendulum would want to swing back. BUT that's if our nation holds a similar flight patter to what it has held for its wealthier periods...

...'cause once china takes over the world and competes and buys the oil we wanna buy and we have to buck up and do with less, we'll have to do something else anyway to fund a "free" society. so i don't see longevity for the fair tax. i don't actually think the united states will stay like it is now.

all i know is that in the interim, for a middle class gal like me who is always trying to widdle down her own consumer issues, it would be nice. i could save some, buy a home, work my li'l garden etc. so selfishly in the short term, i like it. how very convenient for my american impatience and selfish habits (even in trying to eat her good organic food and be good to the earth). paradoxes, paradoxes.

now if the gov't would subsidize the RIGHT things, this would all be different (even in the difficulties of globalized economics). but the evil monsanto...

everything is related to everything else--my mind keeps wanting to run into all of these surrounding things.

I believe this is a Forbiden Political Discussion. According to the rules, you may say whether you liked this book or not, but please do not engage in actually discussing it's contents. it might get crazy out of hand. especially with folks saying things like "we need more taxes"...

In all seriousness, I wholeheartedly disagree. Discussion of "taxes" is apolitical. If anything it is a discussion about regulatory code and how it may effect a country's economics, not about politics.

Sure the topic could easily go political, but my intention in starting this thread was to talk about the mechanics and if the idea of Fair Tax is a good idea for our country. This book and the concept of whether or not Fair Tax is good or bad does not have to be political.

And yeah, it might lead there, but so might talking about the Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, gas prices, foie gras, et cetera... I'm seriously interested in this issue of Fair Tax. I hope we can keep this topic "politics free" so it doesn't get banned by the "Administrative Team™."

~fff

well, in all seriousness, I believe that almost every discussion is, in one way or another, consciously or unconsciously, political. I was (as usual) talking tongue in cheek (whatever that means).

but, isn't the subject of taxation one of the primary topics of decision in the area of politics? isn't that one of the main platforms all politicians talk about and make promises about? if that's not a political discussion, I'm even more at a loss as to what we mean here when we say "political".

Tongue in cheek duly noted.


Taxation is also a regulation that almost every business and most individuals are under, and it's a topic that accountants feel are important.

That's three fairly strong, apolitical reasons for me to want to discuss it.

~fff

As far as I am concerned, that sounds like sales tax. As a native Oregonian, I have to say HELL NO!!! Oregon, one of the few states that does not have a sales tax. Of course we also have terribly under funded schools - but I blame that more on the fact that the lottery funds a general slush fund, when it should fund schools only.

Actually, I'll take my tongue out of my cheek and say what I really believe. A state budget is like a three legged stool. Those legs are income, sales, and property taxes. If one leg is longer, shorter, or even missing, then the stool won't stand.
In my state's case, the school had a normal "income" leg, no "sales" leg, and a really long "property" leg. Then, in 1993, voters revolted and sawed off half off the long leg, but did not replace it.
ok, enough about my state's economy.

how is that a-political? sounds like 3 very strong political reasons. isn't that the very essense of political? the government of the people and all that...

Being an accountant (one of my three reasons) makes my post a political one?

With your reasoning, every thread has potential for politics. As I noted earlier, talks about Bob Dylan, Rolling Stones, gas prices... those (current) threads also have high potential, too. OK, but not every thread (including this one) has to be about it. All I asked was a simple question about what people thought about the concept of "Fair Tax"... which in and of itself is not about politics. Instead the topic has been railroaded by semantics and what-ifs... oy!

Even right now, we're not even talking about politics, we're talking about the word "politics." Silly, huh?

~fff

Back to the subject...


So, Oregon operates under the fiscal structure of uneven stilts.

While the whole "three legs" of the budget are good... does it have to be that way? Is there any reason why the administrative headache in trying to manage and regulate different types of taxes needs to occur? Why wouldn't/couldn't one type of tax cover it? I'm thinking out loud... I don't really know the answers either.

To me, it makes sense to tax consumption... without taxing necessities like food, et cetera. It makes more sense than the random rules, asinine tax code, and millions/billions(?) of dollars spent to enforce the Tax Code each year. The more resources you use, whether public or private, the more tax burden you undertake. Maybe I've been too much into studying about cost drivers and Activity Based Costing lately... but I think from a level of "fairness" (if you will), tax on consumption does make sense.

Patrick's point about moralistic taxation has merit. That is a tricky situation. We currently have that now... there are hefty federal and state/local taxes on "bad things" like cigarettes and alcohol. If sales/consumption tax was the primary income source for public maintenance and governance, then I think it could easily get into taxing the alleged bad things and ease up on the alleged good things. What about flat consumption tax % on all types of items?

hmm... all good thoughts so far...

Has anyone out there read the book yet? I might actually *gasp* read... no, who am I kidding? I'll see if it's on CD...

apolitically yours...
~fff

I'm interested to know how he would go about implementing such an idea. It would mean the effective end of our civilisation.

Not that that is a bad thing.

But the highest taxes would inevitably end up on "consumer" goods, such as CD:s, technology, DVD:s (not books because they're "good"), which would lead to a dramatic decline in buying these things. plus, this would have to be worldwide, otherwise it would create massive problems with illegal imports.

As I said, this would probably be a far better world to live in, but the transition might be difficult, to say the least.

Patrik

well, you'd take home probably 95% of your gross pay instead of 65%... so you'd have more expendible income... if taxes on all consumables was 23% (as proposed in the book), then I don't think it would effect much on at least me buying CDs...

I don't see how it would be the "end of our civilisation," though... please explain...

~fff

do you mean the end of our consumer-driven/ materialistic civilization? globalization?

i tend to think that consumption in the u.s. wouldn't drop b/c people didn't want to spend but rather b/c the united states wouldn't have as much to spend (as other nations take places of prominence and have more wealth than we do currently).

the fair tax sounds good to me currently, but doesn't seem like a long-term plan. i think once revenue dropped b/c spending dropped, we'd "be fit to be tied." then what would be the logical progression, the next tax plan? maybe it's a positive thing?--maybe that would set us up for a more effective plan?

what does the author think will happen in the long run? what are his predictions for the united states with regard to the world market? how goes your reading, dan?

-jaem

edited b/c my grammar stinks

It goes unstarted yet... maybe next week when I'm done with the CPA exam...

~fff

Yeah, that's what I meant. But it would have significant effects on all part of society.

Ok, say you would buy only 19 instead 20 cd:s a week ( ) that wouldn't make much of a difference for you but nation-wide or globally it would make quite a bit of difference. Again, I'm not against this in any way... I think we have about 23% tax on consumables as it is (plus the world's second or so highest income taxes), but you should know what we get for it.

Patrik

so you think we'd potentially transition into something more like great britain tax-wise? (shoot, we've acted just like they did long ago with regard to exploiting other lands/peoples, why not?!)

i actually like the idea, but i'm not sure how to see it with regard to our very large country. all the other examples with happy tax payers seem to come from smaller nations.

can anyone recommend a book on these issues that would look ahead and also do so for the u.s. or other larger countries?

also, patrik, can you give examples of some of the benefits and how they work that seem much better than our more privatized systems. i'd love to hear some of this from personal experience.

Well, the most important benefit of high taxes - the welfare state - is that everyone gets (more or less) a fair chance in life. Your chances at success is not determined by the income of your parents. Everybody gets the same education (in Finland’s case the best in the world according to two consecutive PISA studies), everybody has a chance to study at a university, if you have the brains and the interest. This means that in the Finnish society, class really does play a very small role. (We do of course have other problems)

On a personal note, my dad died of cancer (this was seven years ago) after being in and out of hospital for eight years. In most countries in the world, unless you're part of the minority that can afford insurance, this would mean heavy debt for my family, on top of the emotional stress. Here, no. In fact, mom receives widows pension on top of her own salary, so she can afford to live (alone now) in the house my parents built for themselves.

Recently I underwent surgery for my nose. This included a lot of examinations using various high-tech medical technological advices. Cost = zero. I paid IIRC 64 euros for two days in the hospital.

So basically, this is a fundamental sense of security. If you get sick, at least it is not a financial catastrophe. Let's you focus on getting well, too.

So, there is this saying in the Nordic countries, that you should love you taxes.

And especially now, after Katarina, when you have experienced so painfully what a small and low-cost state actually leads too, I wonder if not more and more Americans too see the reasoning behind such an attitude.

Patrik