?

Enjoy the bogg.

I’m not an economist for the CBO, and have never held a government job. As to compliance costs, the “fair tax” website calculates them at about $265 billion per year. I expect most of this amount will remain in place, as individuals and businesses will still have to perform the exact same calculations for their state and local income taxes. They will just have a few less forms to send in. And small businesses will have to spend time, money and emotional distress to cope with the more frequent audits that the “fair tax” website promises will be imposed on them. Not a worthwhile trade-off, in my opinion.

Trust me, I "know" what the employer share is, its 50%. It used to cap at $x a year, which meant that anyone making over $70,000 or so would max out on their SS contribution around October or sooner, but that went away in the earliest days of the Obama administration.

The part that is deducted from the employee is only half of the SS & Medicare contribution. Unemployment Insurance is also really a tax, since its paid to the government, and would presumably get scooped up into a reform. It's also extremely expensive these days because people tend to be unemployed for much longer between jobs than the 5 or 6 hours it would take me to find a new job in my youth.

There is also the hidden costs... taxes in various cities and counties on everything from employment to commuter taxes to a tax on parking lot spaces. I doubt much or any of that would go away, but Paychex and ADP make a killing on being the ones responsible to take care of all of that for businesses, to the tune of about $50 / paycheck / pay period.

Obamacare was passed because voters and Congress grasped the "big picture" of making health care "affordable" for everyone. No patient left behind. Then reality emerged in the form of those pesky "details". Now nearly everyone is paying the price in the form of higher costs and reduced choices. The devil is in the details, and if you propose to replace the current system you had better make a compelling - and detailed - case. If you don't address the details, you can't possibly lay out the "big picture".

Some yes, 401k plans themselves (which are designed to avoid or at least defer income tax), would become a moot point. The employee would be better off with a brokerage account that they can easily move around and seek the best return on investment instead of the cronied-up employer stuff (most of those do some kind of administrative kick-back to large employers).

real estate has always been exempt from sales or excise taxes because you pay annual property ownership taxes on it. Waive those, and sure, I'd pay 30% "one-time" but it certainly muddies-up the appraised value for mortgages, banks don't finance a tax bill, those are powerful lobbies, there would never be a tax on a home purchase.

Rent.. sure, why-not? Rent is always just what the market will bear, the landlords would have to suck that up if they can't get the full rent + tax, they would have to lower rents until units fill. Supply & demand determines price. Any landlord used to getting $1200 would take $1000 + the 30% tax or something, instead of 0.

However, I don't think its feasible on rents, there would be millions of landlords having to be setup as tax-collecting entities across 98,000 tax jurisdictions in the US. It would be absurd.

Employee benefits are offered to attract and keep good employees, and to match the perks that competitors offer. They would not go away under a "fair tax".

I'd much rather see us return to import tariffs than just another tax scheme which can (and will) be manipulated by the government. That's why I'd rather see a flat income tax than any kind of consumption-based tax.

If we were going to prioritize, however, here are the taxes I'd much like to see repealed right now:
1) FICA, SS, and Medicare: ie ALL payroll tax deductions. Make people pay the taxes themselves rather than hiding them through automatic deductions. You can bet that if people had to sign a check for these they would be up in arms demanding change. More to the point, these taxes go to support the welfare state and more government spending. They need to be cut off.
2) Corporate "income" taxes. These are nothing more than double taxation - a point that would not have been lost on the Founding Fathers. Corporate income taxes don't get paid by the corporations, but by the higher prices of the products and services offered. Get rid of these and you'd see prices drop dramatically and everyone would be better off.
3) Energy taxes. Repeal all of these. There should be no additional taxes just to use a specific service - especially one as critical as energy.

Do these three and I think you can leave the personal income tax as a fourth or fifth priority.

Paying a 30% tax on a new house would help the real estate market?

“You get less of something if you tax it.” I agree. If you tax consumption you will get less consumption. Less consumption means less production. If people spend less and save more, overall economic activity will fall, less taxes will be collected, and the “fair tax” rate will have to rise in order to remain “revenue neutral”.

And just because the “fair tax” is not Marxist does not mean that it’s an improvement over the current system.

Obamacare was sold to the voters as a "positive and hopeful" fix to our badly flawed health care system. The Dems cited all the supposed advantages of the new, untried system while glossing over the glaringly obvious disadvantages. It appears to me that arguments for the "fair tax" are somewhat similar, except that they are applied to tax policy rather than health care.

And no, I'm not a lawyer or an accountant.

Like calling the IRS a male above? "Me dino says he IRS "

Haha!

I don’t see the problem you are raising. When you sell the land, you tax it. It seems simple to me. I think you are bogged down in details rather than grasping the big picture of ridding the world of the IRS with it Inquisition-type power over every individual in the country.

The "voluntary" part is really meant more as "at your discretion". You have control with the Fair Tax. If you want to survive and earn legally, you have no control over the current tax system. It is taken from you entirely involuntarily. The Fair Tax gives you the choice to pay tax only as you can/want to pay tax. If you want to buy nothing but used goods, you can avoid the vast majority of it. You can produce and hoard, or produce and live off of your own land. At least you have choices.

I'm not a responsible party of the FairTax. As a writer, I'm sure you understand that "almost guarantee" was a rhetorical device, no?

The states may follow suit since they will get a portion of the FairTax. Have you thought of that? The tide just might turn towards freedom in the states as well.

The "numerous" flaws you keep flogging also ignore the elimination of compliance costs, so I'm not taking any of your argument to heart. Your Master's Degree didn't make any difference in your very human, but suspect insistence on ignoring a key economical element. So, are you an economist for the CBO? Because this is how they quantify new laws for the government....with no proven historical dynamics.

If you can't quantify it, how do you know my numbers are bogus? And if you can't quantify it, how can you claim that the "fair tax" will do all the wonderful things that it promises?

Workers comp, unemployment insurance, 401k matching and health insurance paid by the employer will not go away under the "fair tax". Businesses today can deduct most or all of these items as a cost of doing business, so they pay a lower tax under the existing system than they otherwise would. I'm not sure about the employer portion of Social Security and Medicare, as I don't see it on their website.

I guess I wasn't clear enough in my response. What I am talking about is that, under the Fair Tax, a person could conceivably have a "legal" job, grow food on his own property, and only buy used goods, with no federal tax being paid. A person CANNOT do that now as you say. If you have any income, you are at the very least supposed to pay social security and Medicare, even if your income is very small. Unfortunately, there are individuals who do not have any income whatsoever and are subsidized to do so by our lovely government. That is another issue entirely.

Yes, the Fair Tax is supposed to be revenue neutral. There are very few people who would even try to pull off my scenario above to avoid paying any tax, but it is doable. To make up for the hermits who might avoid the tax, the enormous pool of illegals and criminals who do not pay income tax now will be paying tax as they spend their money. Even tourists visiting our country going to Disney Land will now be paying some of our federal tax burden. It simply widens the tax base.

Additionally, illegals will no longer be as large of a burden on our country, due to the fact that they will receive no prebate. They will be paying a much larger percentage of their income in taxes.

I find nothing on their website regarding the taxation of the land that comes with new homes. Many of the explanations on their website need further explanation, as I pointed out elsewhere on this thread. And since this thread is a discussion of the merits and demerits of the "fair tax", there is plenty of need to discuss these issues.

All of these same things are discussed on the website, and other websites. There is no need here.

Since you ask, I'm a writer and researcher with Masters Degrees in Economics and Environmental Science, not an accountant.

As for not worrying about April 15, three words: state income taxes.

"Almost guarantee" is not a sufficient reason to implement the Fair Tax, especially with its numerous flaws detailed elsewhere on this thread.

Good! They will have something to do, at least.

Me too. I would be VERY happy to try it.

WHEN WILL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THE REDUCTION IN COSTS TO EVERYONE INCLUDING THE CORPORATION FOR COMPLIANCE?????

You COMPLETELY IGNORE that all up and down this thread. You are so adamant about trashing this idea..while ignoring key elements...why?

The flaws of the current system, no, not flaws....the CRIMINALITY of the current system FAR outweigh the flaws you keep flogging. The freedom we would all experience to pay a federal tax ONLY when we purchase a service or new product would be immeasurable. If the federal government ends up with less money, I guess, knowing Trump's reputation, they will look for places to cut spending. Or, as is the current policy, they will just print more and continue to add that ole hidden tax we have been hit with monthly for eight years under something called, "quantitative easing". It's all going to collapse anyway. Why not try to stem the tide with something quite positive and hopeful for everyone? Unless of course you're a lawyer or an accountant.