Can the Fair tax ever be passed and enacted?

Aug 7, 2010
211
40
Cliffside Park, NJ
#1
Can the Fair tax ever be passed and enacted?

I’m a proponent of the Fair tax but I do not believe it’s politically or economically practical to replace our entire taxes on net incomes with a sales tax.

It would be financially imprudent and politically less feasible and may be impossible to pass a bill transferring our entire federal taxes upon net incomes to a sales tax in a single step. I’m continuously told that Fair tax proponents would not support a fair tax bill to be passed and enacted as other than to be accomplished in a single step; the consequences of retaining such a position is the Fair tax bill will never be attempted on a federal level.

I believe the first incremental step to enact the Fair tax should be to replace all of our FICA payroll tax funding for Medicare and half of FICA’s funding for Social Security with a federal sales tax.
[FICA is our most regressive federal tax; the 15.3% FICA taxes upon payrolls can be reduced by 9.1% of payroll and replaced by a 4.55% general sales tax. If USA payrolls subject to FICA do not exceed 50% of transactions subject to the sales tax this would somewhat reduce the net taxes paid by those dependent upon wage and salary incomes and thus there’d be no need for additional provisions to compensate the working poor.
The increase of tax revenues would be proportionally related to the extent that the amounts of transactions subject to the sales tax exceed double payroll amounts subject to the FICA tax. Eliminating only half of FICA’s social security funding conceptionally retains our association of retirement benefits relationship to individual’s life time wages and salaries].

After the major portion of our FICA taxes has been substantially replaced with a federal sales tax, the following incremental steps should replace portions of individual and corporate taxes upon net incomes with increases of the federal sales taxes. These increases of sales taxes would require some compensating provisions for persons of lesser incomes.
Steps following the initial step (that substantially reduced FICA and enacted the federal sales tax), for the enactment of the Fair tax should simultaneously:
(1) Reduce individual and corporate regular income tax rates upon all income brackets by a uniform portion of net taxable incomes.
(2) Increase the federal general sales tax rate.
(3) Increase the provisions to compensate low income purchasers for the increased sales taxes.

I expect that after one of the incremental steps, we’d have a federal sales tax approaching an unacceptable tax rate; but if I’m wrong, federal income taxes could be entirely eliminated.

Respectfully, Supposn 
 
Aug 7, 2010
211
40
Cliffside Park, NJ
#2
It should be based TOTALLY on a sales tax. That way, the rich who spend a lot of money, pay the brunt the of taxes (like they do now), and the poor pay very little taxes (like they do now). :cool::cool::cool:

Corporations would not pay any taxes.

A heathy, robust economy would result.
Aufgeblassen, you’re among those that contending a Fair tax bill must be passed and enacted in a single step?
The consequences of retaining such a position is the Fair tax bill will never be attempted on a federal level.

Corporations pay income taxes and they pay or collect on behalf of the government the taxes upon gross sales within the jurisdiction of a government that mandates such taxes. Enterprises pass all their net expenditures (but not all extraordinary penalties and taxes that are not also generally levied upon their competitors); enterprises pass their net expenditures on within the prices of their products.

I’m among those contending the wealthy do not now pay their full share of our federal tax revenues; otherwise there’s no reason to transfer our tax revenue sources from net incomes to gross sales transactions based taxes.
The consequences of every incremental step to enact Fair taxes would be increased proportion of our tax revenues paid by the more wealthy segments of our population.

I expect that after one of the incremental steps, we’d have a federal sales tax approaching an unacceptable tax rate; but if I’m wrong, federal income taxes could be entirely eliminated.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Aug 7, 2010
211
40
Cliffside Park, NJ
#3
At an unacceptable level??? Surely you mean "painful level". A level is need to provide a balanced budget. If it means several program cuts - so be it!!!
you’re questioning my use of the word “unacceptable” when I wrote of my expectation that after one of incremental steps transferring portions of our tax revenue sources from bases of net incomes to taxes based upon gross sales transaction, we’d have a federal sales tax approaching an unacceptable tax rate.
(I further declared if I’m wrong, federal income taxes could be entirely eliminated).

I meant “unacceptable tax rate” in a sense that a substantial plurality of voters and commercial interests would oppose any further increase of the sales tax and within both U.S. congressional houses a substantial plurality of members would vote against such further increases.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Aug 7, 2010
211
40
Cliffside Park, NJ
#4
It should. But it won't. You'll NEVER get a Congress to give up the enormous amount of power associated with controlling a tax system.
“Congress will NEVER …”

Reason10, a substantial portion, (possibly the majority) of our laws are those that the legislators “would NEVER pass”; but eventually they did so.

Granted passage of some legislative bills and the specifics within them are facilitated by sweeteners, Legislators and regulators are more prone to appreciate the advantages (or the disadvantages) of some potential bills if their legislative support provides (or denies) some addition campaign funding or other political advantages to the legislatures or their supporters.

In many cases statements prefixed by the phrase “Congress has never …” are usually true but those prefixed by “Congress will never …” usually require some additional qualification; most at least require an “, unless …”.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Aug 7, 2010
211
40
Cliffside Park, NJ
#5
Tell me AGAIN a time in history when Congress actually GAVE UP power.
Reason10, our current and recent congresses haven't the courage or the integrity required to openly support or oppose administration's active military missions.
We were and continue to be engaged in act of war without our congress’s explicit permissions to do so.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Likes: 1 person
Aug 7, 2010
211
40
Cliffside Park, NJ
#6
That is very true. This current Republican Congress has bent over for the KENYAN VILLAGE IDIOT.
Reason10, we did even worse when the Democrats went along with the republicans in support of Bush’s search for ‘weapons of mass destruction. They can be found within most of our 99 cents stores; just ask for box cutters.

Other than Viet Nam, our invasion of Iraq is among, (if not the) greatest of USA’s military, economic, and diplomatic blunders.
Our Civil War was disastrous but from the view point of Lincoln and that of the confederacy, the issues in contention made some sense. We never had a government or a viable political movement that we could back and thus justify our entering Viet Nam.

Although it may or may not be to as great extent as our blundering into Viet Nam, The same can be said of our extensive commitment of military and financial resource in the Middle East.

I suppose that if peace should ever break out between the Arabs and Israel, the USA would be their common enemy. Each of those participating nations will remember the military equipment the USA provided to their nation’s enemy.
You don’t forget or forgive the provider of the aircraft, tanks and guns that fired upon you.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Likes: 1 person
Aug 7, 2010
211
40
Cliffside Park, NJ
#7
Nope. That [i.e. USA's attacking and occupying Iraqu] ( wasn't worse than allowing an economy-destroying OBAMACARE to be implemented. ...
Reason10, federal minimal standards and the regulatory agencies that administrate and enforce those standards are among the few issues that Democrats do generally and clearly do differ from Republicans.

When Democrats do so differ it is generally to their credit. It positions them on the side that is generally more beneficial to our aggregate economy and population.

[I.E. generally on THESE ISSUES when Democrats do differ from Republicans, it is the Democrats positions that generally do improve (more than otherwise) conditions for our nation’s aggregate individual persons and our aggregate society (which include but are not limited to only commercial enterprises].

When federal Democratic legislators and Democratic administrations enforce laws through such agencies and their regulations such as OSHA, FAA, FDA, CDC, Department of Labor, Social Security Administration, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security retirement and long term disability, our aggrate population's is (more than otherwise) generally safer, more comfortable and less anxious.

In regard to Romneycare, the affordable care act will join such other federal agencies and policies that are generally to Democrat’s advantages and much more detrimental to Republicans seeking federal offices.

Respectfully, Supposn
 

Similar Discussions