Comments on: Our Stupid Tax Code

By: Russell Newquist

Russell Newquist — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 23:46:35 +0000

It's an open weblog, no sign-in is required. http://philosophers-stone.typepad.com/my_weblog/ Edit 5 seconds after I posted this, I realized that you meant signing on for comments, and now I feel like a jerk. If you follow through the "comments" link at the bottom of each post, there's a "sign in" link at the bottom of each page. Commenting requires a Typepad account (it used to be open, but like every other blogger I had ridiculous problems with comment spam).

By: sam

sam — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 20:47:41 +0000

To end this:

Does the investment banker actually have a greater stake in our society thank does the fireman, policeman or enlisted soldier?

What value (=some measure of productivity) would John put on an enlisted soldier who's lost a limb, or multiple limbs, in the service of his or her country? Between the investment banker and this soldier, which has made a greater sacrifice for the country, which has borne the greater burden of supporting the society?

By: Steven Taylor

Steven Taylor — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 19:49:14 +0000

Indeed, that underscores that under yetanotherjohn's proposal, Terrell Owens, Sean Penn, and Micahel Moore (to name but three) would have more of a vote than any us (I assume, anyway) engaged in this discussion.

By: Steven Taylor

Steven Taylor — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 19:45:55 +0000

This also goes back to the idea of stakeholders in the society. The more productive members of society who bear the greater burden of supporting the society have a greater say in one portion of the government.

I understand the basic notion, and have some very real sympathy to the stake in society notion. However, the notion that the best/only measure of one's stake in society is one's income is flawed. Does the investment banker actually have a greater stake in our society thank does the fireman, policeman or enlisted soldier?

And that is just one simple objection to your proposal.

By: sam

sam — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 18:54:55 +0000

I fear it's a deadly serious proposal (very badly thought out, but deadly serious).

By: sam

sam — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 18:51:04 +0000

What makes you think that the people who pay the most taxes are the most productive members of society?

What Michael said (asked). Before anyone gives assent to the propostion that those who pay the most taxes are the most productive, he should understand that he owes us a definition of "productive". (And do note that many of those who assert that taxes paid are directly proportional to degree of productivity--on any definition--would place high-paid actors, musicians, artists, and other leftist tending purveyors of the frivolous outside the circle of the annointed.)

By: Pete Burgess

Pete Burgess — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 18:24:18 +0000

Michael, since the explanation of this particular issue can get lengthy, please go to this site and review the research: http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=a...

By: Michael

Michael — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 17:34:13 +0000

Pete,
Without taking into consideration FICA, the "prebates", or other tax credits, a married HoH making $100,000 annually pays $19,852.50 in income taxes. Under a 30% "Fair Tax" on consumption, in order to pay at or below that amount in taxes, he couldn't spend more than $66,000 of that. A HoH making $50,000 couldn't spend more than $24,000 of his income without paying more in taxes. Someone making $500,000 annually and spending all of it would pay $149,000 under the current tax system, and $150,000 under the Fair Tax. Someone making $1 million would actually pay about $24,000 less in taxes, even if they spent every last time of it on taxed goods.

By: Pete Burgess

Pete Burgess — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 17:33:38 +0000

Russell, I am not savvy enough to understand how to sign on to your weblog. Help me out and I will attempt to clarify your objections.

By: Michael

Michael — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 17:25:12 +0000

What makes you think that the people who pay the most taxes are the most productive members of society? Do you think that the executive at AIG and GM should have more representation on the bailout legislation than you and I?

By: Pete Burgess

Pete Burgess — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 16:59:24 +0000

Russell, I will respond on your blog.

By: jwest

jwest — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 16:49:13 +0000

Russell’s objections to the Fair Tax plan are typical of what you find among people who can’t find anything wrong with it.

It’s not the plan he has problems with, it’s what he thinks the plan will morph into. If the new standard for evaluating plans is how well it holds up under attack by an army of straw men, we are all in trouble.

By: Russell Newquist

Russell Newquist — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 16:11:15 +0000

Because we live in the real world and have to deal with what's achievable.

By: Russell Newquist

Russell Newquist — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 16:04:50 +0000

I'm inherently suspicious of any plan that begins with "I'm afraid you don't understand..."

I understand the plan just fine. I also understand that the tax, as proposed, will never in any reality stay as simple as the proposers make it out to be.

Also, yes, small businesses all over the country already do it with state sales taxes. This is already a pain in many localities, and adding a layer of federal taxes on top of it won't make it any easier, as I discuss in greater depth at my own blog, here:

http://philosophers-stone.typepad.com/my_weblog/2...

By: Pete Burgess

Pete Burgess — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 16:04:13 +0000

Why do we keep trying to fix a completely unproductive, unfair, unintelligible, unmanageable method of revenue collection? It's like trying to swim up the Snake River in May. Why not get out and walk on the land?