What's So Fair About Income Tax?
There were a handful of letters to the editor in the Indianapolis Star today, such as this one, that seemed confused on the point of the Fair Tax plan currently being pushed by Rep. Mike Sodrel. I thought it worth a dissection of the letter to better understand the mentality of those who oppose it.
U.S. Rep. Mike Sodrel in his letter on Oct. 31 supports a national sales tax, which he calls a "fair tax." He doesn't indicate the percentage of the tax, but it will be much greater than a state sales tax.
Ok, here we see the first point of confusion. The writer notes that of course this is bad because it will be much greater than a sales tax. That's implicit in his statement. Considering this tax would be the primary replacement for the income tax, it's also an unnecessary and obviously partisan statement, one designed to reduce this to a "tax the poor" letter from the getgo. Of course it would be higher than Indiana's 3.4%. The likelihood is it will be quite a bit higher. Anyone actually considering the Fair Tax proposal, though, sees that everyone pays the same rate based on consumption of consumer goods. There are no loopholes or shelters or havens for the rich who currently get out of paying much of their assessed taxes at present. We all pay the same on consumer goods regardless of our income. And in a stunning reversal, the "poor" will actually get kickbacks for basic necessities to reduce their tax burden.
And although I often see the comment "the rich don't spend as much of their disposable income" as a reason not to use it, do you think "the rich", which is a loose Us/Them term at best, pay their 'fair share' of the income tax? Most don't pay near the current rate, because they can afford the lawyers and accountants who understand the tax code who ensure that their guy gets every break written in by every special interest lobby they can. Is that better? I've yet to see that answered.
Anytime an alternative to federal income tax is suggested, the first thing we here is how unfair it will be to the poor and middle class (although the middle class is usually tacked on only as an afterthought). It's Marxian bs class warfare at its finest. The federal income tax law was an unconstitutional piece of garbage no one would sign on to until the feds started promising the states they'd get a kickback. Sound familiar ye olde central Indiana counties who voted in that restaurant tax? Of course, we now see the states by and large got the short end of the stick for accepting that deal with the devil, but again this isn't mentioned.
Providing special interest tax-breaks and using the tax code as a means to keep people divided based on income is so pathetically corrupt and wrong for this country, I can't see why anyone beyond the seriously mentally deficient (and/or leftists) agree with it. There ARE alternatives to income tax and the Fair Tax is a damn good one. Is it perfect, maybe not. Have most of its opponents fully read what it entails? Usually not. Please do yourself that much of a favor before bad-mouthing it. It's full of its own kickbacks to the poor, sort of reversing that whole class warfare thing. Perhaps another reason it's a danger to the Left in this country. Add to this that it will basically replace without hardly raising the basic burden most companies pay in various "hidden taxes" and it's even more appealing. But that's not the issue, because it's difficult to debate that. It's easier to say:
I don't understand how that would be fair to those on fixed incomes.
I have listened to enough talk radio to know that there are those who think being poor is a behavioral problem and compassion isn't in order. However, there are many retirees who have paid taxes all of their lives and are now living on Social Security and pensions. How is this tax fair to them? What about the disabled who live on fixed incomes? Call this tax what it is, a national sales tax, but don't call it a "fair tax."
Guy didn't even read what the hell the Fair Tax is. He's just spouting the leftist talking point. I wonder what talk radio exactly he's listening to. Poor is a behaviroal problem? When you subsidize it, yeah it kinda becomes one. Is everyone who's poor mentally ill? That's a retarded leftist statement if I ever heard one. Compassion isn't in order...yeah. When was that said? Did Al Franken say that about Rush or was that Jerry Springer talking about Hannity? If you're basing your economic advice on what any one pundit says, you need to have a warm glass of milk and rethink your day. I don't care what side of the aisle they're on. Give the alternatives, Flat Tax included, a chance, or continue suffering in the payroll/FICA tax quagmire that is our modern monetary black hole for working Americans. The choice should be clear.
There were a handful of letters to the editor in the Indianapolis Star today, such as this one, that seemed confused on the point of the Fair Tax plan currently being pushed by Rep. Mike Sodrel. I thought it worth a dissection of the letter to better understand the mentality of those who oppose it.
U.S. Rep. Mike Sodrel in his letter on Oct. 31 supports a national sales tax, which he calls a "fair tax." He doesn't indicate the percentage of the tax, but it will be much greater than a state sales tax.
Ok, here we see the first point of confusion. The writer notes that of course this is bad because it will be much greater than a sales tax. That's implicit in his statement. Considering this tax would be the primary replacement for the income tax, it's also an unnecessary and obviously partisan statement, one designed to reduce this to a "tax the poor" letter from the getgo. Of course it would be higher than Indiana's 3.4%. The likelihood is it will be quite a bit higher. Anyone actually considering the Fair Tax proposal, though, sees that everyone pays the same rate based on consumption of consumer goods. There are no loopholes or shelters or havens for the rich who currently get out of paying much of their assessed taxes at present. We all pay the same on consumer goods regardless of our income. And in a stunning reversal, the "poor" will actually get kickbacks for basic necessities to reduce their tax burden.
And although I often see the comment "the rich don't spend as much of their disposable income" as a reason not to use it, do you think "the rich", which is a loose Us/Them term at best, pay their 'fair share' of the income tax? Most don't pay near the current rate, because they can afford the lawyers and accountants who understand the tax code who ensure that their guy gets every break written in by every special interest lobby they can. Is that better? I've yet to see that answered.
Anytime an alternative to federal income tax is suggested, the first thing we here is how unfair it will be to the poor and middle class (although the middle class is usually tacked on only as an afterthought). It's Marxian bs class warfare at its finest. The federal income tax law was an unconstitutional piece of garbage no one would sign on to until the feds started promising the states they'd get a kickback. Sound familiar ye olde central Indiana counties who voted in that restaurant tax? Of course, we now see the states by and large got the short end of the stick for accepting that deal with the devil, but again this isn't mentioned.
Providing special interest tax-breaks and using the tax code as a means to keep people divided based on income is so pathetically corrupt and wrong for this country, I can't see why anyone beyond the seriously mentally deficient (and/or leftists) agree with it. There ARE alternatives to income tax and the Fair Tax is a damn good one. Is it perfect, maybe not. Have most of its opponents fully read what it entails? Usually not. Please do yourself that much of a favor before bad-mouthing it. It's full of its own kickbacks to the poor, sort of reversing that whole class warfare thing. Perhaps another reason it's a danger to the Left in this country. Add to this that it will basically replace without hardly raising the basic burden most companies pay in various "hidden taxes" and it's even more appealing. But that's not the issue, because it's difficult to debate that. It's easier to say:
I don't understand how that would be fair to those on fixed incomes.
I have listened to enough talk radio to know that there are those who think being poor is a behavioral problem and compassion isn't in order. However, there are many retirees who have paid taxes all of their lives and are now living on Social Security and pensions. How is this tax fair to them? What about the disabled who live on fixed incomes? Call this tax what it is, a national sales tax, but don't call it a "fair tax."
Guy didn't even read what the hell the Fair Tax is. He's just spouting the leftist talking point. I wonder what talk radio exactly he's listening to. Poor is a behaviroal problem? When you subsidize it, yeah it kinda becomes one. Is everyone who's poor mentally ill? That's a retarded leftist statement if I ever heard one. Compassion isn't in order...yeah. When was that said? Did Al Franken say that about Rush or was that Jerry Springer talking about Hannity? If you're basing your economic advice on what any one pundit says, you need to have a warm glass of milk and rethink your day. I don't care what side of the aisle they're on. Give the alternatives, Flat Tax included, a chance, or continue suffering in the payroll/FICA tax quagmire that is our modern monetary black hole for working Americans. The choice should be clear.
posted by Rob Beck | 1:20 AM
4 Comments:
Am I reading this right? A 23% sales tax on spending past the poverty level?
Ouch.
Also note the current "hidden tax" rate on all products and services, especially in the form of payroll taxes, both what the employee and employer pay. Those are rarely considered in such discussions. All those would go away.
Consider also the proposed return to lower-income citizens. This redistributes the tax to when money's spent, not when it's earned. Again, did I say it's perfect. Possibly not, but it's a helluva lot more fair than the current system and that's rarely acknowledged.
Y'know, I'm all right with the principle, but it's all about how it's implemented. And that's where the standard liberal questions about the underlying motives come into play.
The rebate, for example, is hardly a big help. The levels listed won't even cover the tax on rent for many city-dwellers. And the exclusion of "intangible property" transactions from taxation . . .
As written, it would appear that the net effect will be to shift the tax burden even more onto the middle class than the system currently in place. I don't object to the idea necessarily, but neither do I trust Congress to implement a "Fair Tax" fairly.
For some info on the Fair Tax why not come over to Barley Island Pub on Nov 15th at 7PM? The Hamilton County LP is hosting a Fair Tax Evening featuring Tom Wright (Executive Director of Americans for Fair Taxation), Cecil Bohanon, Ron Ranking and Abdul Hakeem Shabazz from 1430AM. All your questions will be answered by the folks who have all the answers!
(This public service announcement was brough to you by me, Michael)
Post a Comment
<< Home