It's called a constitutional amendment and it would simply require a genuinely balanced budget (meaning no accounting gimmicks).

Some of these people are actually stupid enough to think that punishing the rich for being rich (by making them pay more in taxes) is actually a good thing. The only way to be fair to everyone is to eliminate the whole perverted notion of the progressive tax. I'd like to see the 16th Amendment repealed and a return to the tax system set forth in the Constitution.

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

Replying to you and mwillman.

As spacecoyote already know this is not a big benefit for the rich. It is a progressive tax, although it may not seem so at first glance. And while it is progressive it should benefit almost everyone.

First we will start with the prebate, it has multiple functions and helping the poor out is one of them. This is an amount of money given to families to cover the taxes of necessities. This is not meant to cover the actual cost of the food, just the cost of the tax on that food. This is about taxes not welfare. Welfare would be responsible for covering those costs. This means that the poor could live tax free. It is determined by family size.

It repeals payroll taxes, which account for 38% of federal taxation and fall more on low and middle class families.

It saves about 80% of the 400 billion spent in compliance costs each year.
People with adjusted gross incomes of less than 20000 have a compliance cost of 4.53 percent of their income. People with adjusted gross incomes of more than 200000 have a compliance cost of .29 percent of their income. These compliance costs fall hardest on the poor.

This plans main benefit, at least to me, is its huge benefit to the economy. This will raise the real wages and benefit all.

This plan significantly lowers taxation on work and savings. Therefore lowering the overall tax burden on works, that is according to a study done by professor Kotlikoff of Boston University.

It encourages savings instead of consumption. This will allow people to save for the future. This is a big contrast to our current system which taxes work and savings. It tries to get the poor and middle class to spend less and save more.

It lower the lifetime tax burden on all household. That is because of the savings, investment and economic growth that the system. Everyone wins because a stronger economy is good for all.

If we keep our current system we will have to double our payroll taxes, that is a 21% decrease in take home pay after taxes. That is to cover the the increased cost of social security. By 2030 we are looking at a 11.5% higher real wages than if we keep what we have. 25% higher by 2100.

Also of course it eliminates exemptions and special interests. Which is something I think we can all agree needs to be done.

There is extensive research and writing on the progressive nature of this tax in the book. I only took some of it. If you need more specific information on something, just ask. I think this plan will be good for everyone and really needed. The more supporters the better for all of us. I would really suggest the books, they are better at writing and explaining than I.

Well mwillman and mkfffe what do you think?

Will the prebate cover the costs of tax on all necesities (clothes and food) every time or does it expire over a course of the month (and renews at the beginning of each month)? Because if they expire, how do you ensure it will be enough to get them through the month.

So the current system has problems, all systems have problems. But applying a new system would be un-cost effective. It would be better to just reform our current tax system.

And the rise in wages will raise prices. Basic laws of inflation. Because more money is going to flood the market (spendable income) the value of the dollar will drop.

2 points for bringing in a study. -1 for not giving either the title or link to the study, so 1 point for you.

What it encourages and what would happen are two different things. People will continue to buy crap as long as they can afford it. So the initial rise in prices (from the tax levied on them) will be offset by the "pay raise" from the the end of income tax.

So we need to reform social security, that's been important for years. I'll have to re-read the book, cause I didn't get excited about the system when I read it last time (so I read it half-heartedly during finals week.

__________________
Non concupisces domum proximi tui; nec desiderabis uxorem eius, non servum, non ancillam, non bowem, non asinum, nec omnia quae illius sunt.

They should get a check each month to cover the cost of necessities based on family size. That is just to cover tax costs not the actual cost of necessities.

We have been trying to reform the current system for a long time, how do you think it got so large. Transition costs to this system would be minimal and negligible.

Real wages account for inflation. Thus why I said real wages will increase and not just wages will increase. The increase in wages will be higher. An increase in real wages means that wages are predicted to rise more than inflation. The people will have more buying power. It could very well turn us from the crisis our economy is facing. A strong economy is definitely a good thing.


Sorry most of what I am using here is from books, not the internet.
Here is the title and link from the book fairtax: the truth.
Comparing average and marginal tax rates under the fairtax and the current system of federal taxation.

http://people.bu.edu/kotlikoff/Compa...2010-17-06.pdf

I don't know, I can not get this link to work right now. Tell me if it works for you.



Isn't it better to encourage savings and investment instead of spending. This encouragement will result in some increase, the question is what amount. Either way some increase it better than none. It will be an improvement.



Well read both of them. I would say the second is a bit more detailed. More studies and economic work.

Got any real numbers to go with that?

Im an engineer and I like to see numbers.

__________________
Walt Whitman
"I say that democracy can never prove itself beyond cavil, until it founds and luxuriantly grows its own forms of art, poems, schools, theology, displacing all that exists, or that has been produced anywhere in the past, under opposite influences."

Any part specifically, as I said most of this is from books. Is there anything that does not seem right to you, I can try to find it and find the other info that goes with it.

I dont get it.

You want to stop payroll taxes and give people money to pay for what?
higher sales taxes.?

Where exactly does the prebate money come from?

How do we pay for infrastructure and all the other important things this nation needs?

What I don't see you saying is
what do we stop supporting so that we don't go into larger national debt
becuase of the decrease in moneys to the government.

__________________
Walt Whitman
"I say that democracy can never prove itself beyond cavil, until it founds and luxuriantly grows its own forms of art, poems, schools, theology, displacing all that exists, or that has been produced anywhere in the past, under opposite influences."

Stop most, if not all, other taxation. The difference in the way taxes collected make a big differences that effect everyone. The effects are much more complicated than just the time of collection.

The prebate comes from the federal government, much like social security money. The money it taken from the taxation. The aim of it is to stop exemptions while helping the poor.

This tax was designed to make exactly as much money as all of our currant taxation. The government will make just as much money, although whether they spend more than they have is a different issue.
On this site there are multiple links on how they get the 23% figure.
It is under the section:
"The FairTax will not be revenue neutral (i.e. bring in the same revenue as the current system) at 23%"
Americans For Fair Taxation:

I used this because it was much easier than coping large sections from a book.

There will be no decrease in revenues to the government.

I hope that helps. I am off to mow the lawn.

Here is an analysis of the fair tax idea.
that shows much better then I can that the fair tax is anything but fair.

FactCheck.org: Unspinning the FairTax

__________________
Walt Whitman
"I say that democracy can never prove itself beyond cavil, until it founds and luxuriantly grows its own forms of art, poems, schools, theology, displacing all that exists, or that has been produced anywhere in the past, under opposite influences."