Does Chuck Norris get it?

[RoyalShock]

I know, Chuck Norris gets whatever he wants. :D

http://townhall.com/columnists/ChuckNorris/2008/09/23/americas_founders_financial_advice

[Awesome Sauce Malone]

I havent read the article yet but Ill just throw this out there and if you dont like it go ahead and throw it back.




Chuck Norris sued the people that created the "Chuck Norris Facts" He sued the people that brought him to thr forefront of a whole generation of kids that didnt know who he was. He would be just another guy on the infomercial if it wasnt for that. Oh and the guy who made that movie with Jonathan Brandis

[CharlieHog]

Can somebody here who supports the Fair Tax to me explain why it's a good idea?

It seems ridiculous to me and I can't imagine it would work.

[engrshock]

Can somebody here who supports the Fair Tax to me explain why it's a good idea?

It seems ridiculous to me and I can't imagine it would work.

There are no fair taxes unless everyone else pays except me. ;-)

I have seen a number of proposals for a Fair Tax and they all have warts as does the current system. Some want a flat tax across the board. That type of tax would likely increase taxes on the "middle class" while slightly lowering higher income brackets. This all depends upon "deductions" that are allowed or not allowed. Some want a sales tax. This would tax all individuals evenly based upon what they spend. However income that is not spent would not be taxed. This would shift the tax burden to the lower to middle income tax brackets who do not have much to save and have to buy basic things for living. In any case the amount of revenue will not go down (lower taxes) unless the spending is controlled. I remember an interview of George Bush the 1st and he was asked how President Reagan was able to actually raise taxes when he had nearly everyone believing he lowered them and Bush answered "very masterfully" or something like that. One way or another the government is going to raise tax revenues and Fair is in the eye of the beholder.

[RoyalShock]

He sued the people that brought him to thr forefront of a whole generation of kids that didnt know who he was. He would be just another guy on the infomercial if it wasnt for that. Oh and the guy who made that movie with Jonathan Brandis

Another way to look at it is that he sued the people who possibly (I don't know if they did or didn't) made a bunch of money in ad sales off his name and life's work, without his permission.

But that really has nothing to do with the linked article.

[CharlieHog]

Can somebody here who supports the Fair Tax to me explain why it's a good idea?

It seems ridiculous to me and I can't imagine it would work.

There are no fair taxes unless everyone else pays except me. ;-)

I have seen a number of proposals for a Fair Tax and they all have warts as does the current system. Some want a flat tax across the board. That type of tax would likely increase taxes on the "middle class" while slightly lowering higher income brackets. This all depends upon "deductions" that are allowed or not allowed. Some want a sales tax. This would tax all individuals evenly based upon what they spend. However income that is not spent would not be taxed. This would shift the tax burden to the lower to middle income tax brackets who do not have much to save and have to buy basic things for living. In any case the amount of revenue will not go down (lower taxes) unless the spending is controlled. I remember an interview of George Bush the 1st and he was asked how President Reagan was able to actually raise taxes when he had nearly everyone believing he lowered them and Bush answered "very masterfully" or something like that. One way or another the government is going to raise tax revenues and Fair is in the eye of the beholder.

The Fair Tax and the Flat Tax are two different things. The Fair Tax, as I understand it, will eliminate the income tax and tax only the money spent, drawing all revenue from sales tax. The way they keep this from being an economically crippling regressive tax is that verybody would get a check every month to cover their spending up to the "poverty" level so those in poverty would continue to be tax exempt.

Also, they theorize that rich people hide their income but not their spending, so this would shift the burden to the very rich.

The two main problems I see is that first, it discourages spending, at least above the poverty level. Discouraging spending is bad for the economy.

Secondly, who says the very rich have to spend their money in the US? If I was wealthy and was going to buy a car or yacht or whatever and this tax was in place, I'd buy my car or yacht or clothes or jewelery in another country.

[RoyalShock]

The two main problems I see is that first, it discourages spending, at least above the poverty level. Discouraging spending is bad for the economy.

People spending and not saving has extended expensive Social Security and Medicare programs whose costs are likely to continue outpacing contributions.

Short-sightedness creates situations like the one we're in now.

[CharlieHog]

I guess I don't really follow you.

Spending money creates jobs. More jobs equals more people in the workforce which equals more people contributing to social security and medicare. I agree that these programs need to be fixed but I don't see how saving helps.

[engrshock]

http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.html

The above article relates to the Fair Tax. Another thought with the Fair Tax is that if every automobile is taxed at 30% it would most likely cause consumers to wait in buying a new car. Same with a TV or computer etc. That also would effect the economy but might just negate the Fair Tax bias toward the wealthy. I know that if I was needing a new car I would probably put off the purchase as long as possible. Also what is included in sales. Does it include medicine, health care services etc.?

[RoyalShock]

I guess I don't really follow you.

Spending money creates jobs. More jobs equals more people in the workforce which equals more people contributing to social security and medicare. I agree that these programs need to be fixed but I don't see how saving helps.

Because it's cheaper for a person to take care of themselves than for a beauracracy to do it. The overhead saved could then be spent as the individual sees fit (stimulating the economy in a more sustainable fashion). Not only that, money saved and invested now will be worth more (growth) than money collected later via taxes (generally speaking).

Philosophically what you are suggesting is that people should forget their long-term financial needs for the sake of today's economy, then rely on the government to take care of them. Aren't we now reaping the "benefits" of that type of thinking?

[Awesome Sauce Malone]

But that really has nothing to do with the linked article.

you're right.

My point was basically that I dont pay any attention to Chuck Norris.

[C0|dB|00ded]

Excessive saving leads to deflation and a stagnant economy. This is a phenomenon Japan is all to familiar with.

There is a happy-medium regarding the balance of consumption and saving.

I am all for the 15% flat tax (excluding the lowest income levels). This would truly be fair and probably increase the tax coffers when it's all said and done.

The reason this will never happen is because it would destroy sectors of the accounting, insurance, and legal industry.


T


...8)

[1979Shocker]

Can somebody here who supports the Fair Tax to me explain why it's a good idea?

It seems ridiculous to me and I can't imagine it would work.

Here's a web page that gives the pros and cons of the National Sales Tax, also known as the Fair Tax.

http://www.balancedpolitics.org/national_sales_tax.htm