Defending the Truth

What are your thoughts on the fair tax??

I was 100% for the fair tax until some questions were raised after watching the Republican debate today. I feel the fair tax is still a very good and fair system, but implementing this might actually slow down the economy after hearing Romney's remarks. Sure I will be able to keep more of my hard earned money, as everyone else, however products will be more expensive.

Could it be possible American's will be less willing to spend if things are more expensive to purchase, in return slowing down the economy? Or is it possible more money back in your pocket will allow people to spend more, boosting the economy?

Thoughts on the fair tax??

Thanks for bringing up the issue boss. The idea of a fair tax is a great idea, on paper. The application would be problematic.

First, no tax system is 'fair'. It's merely a necessary evil.

Second, the concept of fair tax will have broad impacts on economic stability and will end up costing people more money than it saves them. The loss in investments would be staggering.

Flat tax, national sales tax, however you want to slice it, the only system that will facilitate our government is the graduated tax system. We like to influence behavior through the implementation of taxes, tax deductions, and tax incentives. Our whole process of rewarding/punishing social actions through taxation would be gone. We wouldn't be able to reward small business with tax breaks, we wouldn't be able to encourage workers with the earned income credit. Too many problems are not addressed by the proposals.

Could you elaborate on this?

Good overall response though!

"Fair tax" should be viewed like this in my opinion:

It is basically a bell curve.
If you have way more than you need you give more than others
If you have way less than you need you give little or none.
If you make an average living you pay an average amount (between the two).



That is fair as hell. And even more so if our military didn't get most of our hard earned money.

Sure... I'd be more than happy to. A national sales tax will suppress sales. Individuals will avoid purchasing products for a period of time after the implementation of the national sales tax. While the "real" price may not have changed, the sticker price will have jumped substantially. Individuals will look at the prices and lose confidence in the amount of money they can spend. This will reduce sales. Reduced sales will limit the effectiveness of the national sales tax to generate money and will lead to a deterioration of the companies sales. A drop in sales will lead to a drop in the value of stock. A drop in the value of stock will reduce the incentive for the investor to invest.

The economy will cool and if the situation is prolonged it could cause it to freeze. Another "Great Depression" style economic situation is a great possibility.

Not to piss on your parade boss, but the military is specifically listed in the Constitution as a requirement of the federal government. This means that out of ALL of our wonderful entitlement programs, the federal is constitutionally obligated to "provide for the common defense" first.

But you support a graduated tax system. That's reasonable.

Very well explained. Makes quite a lot of sense. Thank you

Yes, the common defense. Standing armies, however, I believe is an entirely different story. Not only is such a military industrial complex not conferred in the constitution but many will say that it's against the spirit of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence in the first place. Having a huge military apparatus that occupies military bases in most of the world's recognized nations was never apart of the inclinations of the authors of the Constitution. I believe Hev was merely talking about returning to our more humble military existence we enjoyed before, at least so that we're not on the level as to where we're exporting our hegemony (*cough* I mean freedom *cough*) as an imperialist power.

Perhaps if the tax went to more social and humanitarian causes, such as feeding the poor, aiding the sick, or bettering our education system; the tax system wouldn't look as if to be a necessary evil.

We will agree to disagree on the standing army. This isn't a thread about the army so I'm not going to hijack to that point.

As far as tax goes, even if we were supporting more social/humanitarian causes people will find the tax unfair. The 'rich' never pay enough. That argument is tired. The rich aren't taxed at a higher rate because it's fair, they are taxed at a higher rate because it's practical. Anytime you are taking money out of peoples pockets and putting into programs they don't utilize, they are going to become frustrated. They don't see a return on their investment. This is still a capitalistic society despite our best efforts.

But the fact that the standing army uses up such a large amount of funding, it's a large reason why we have taxes in the first place. I believe it's highly relevant.

And I don't see how you disagree that the founders were against standing armies. I thought this was well-known. The founders had a great antipathy toward a large military, especially at peace time.

"The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force." --Thomas Jefferson

This argument, also, is tired. Even if one were to completely disregard people's obligations toward society, the common man, and the betterment thereof, which you obviously are, you're still ignoring the fact that rich people owe something to society for giving them the opportunity to be rich. For example, someone with great business skills wouldn't be able to utilize them growing up in say, many places in Africa, were the education and business infrastructures conducive to such a career are in many cases non-existent. However, with a good education system, and good infrastructure and health of the people in that context, someone can grow up to be a businessman/woman and utilize those skills. It's only "fair" for rich people to give back to such a society conducive to their existence and wealth.

So, just because the very rich wouldn't necessarily always see a direct return as opposed to someone poor in such domestic programs, doesn't mean that it's 'unfair' for them to have the heaviest "burden" (if you want to call it that).