Ok, thanks. I'm sure if this idea were to ever be taken seriously, which I highly doubt, there would be plenty of studies to contradict this too. The line about people having to buy things and that they want to buy things and that its human nature to indulge ourselves...... Guess what? Thats exactly the problem I have with this assanine plan. The middle, and lower, class gets screwed by this. I know you'll talk about your prebate/prorate/whatever idea, but I'll get to that in a sec.
The current tax system if the one screwing people. You get "penalized" on what you earn AND on what you spend. Under the new plan you only get "penalized" on what you spend.
I think I loved this diatribe most. Talk about a walking contradiction, this fairytale entails that the rich will be carrying the burden of our government upon their backs while working class families rejoice in their new liberated financial freedoms thus allowing them a better quality of life. There's no guarantees in any of what you said to that measure. Spout off numbers any which way and it still doesn't make sense. For instance, if I were Bill Gates, I would become an expatriot so fast it would make your head swim. So would the rest of the rich. After all, they're already rich and could easily afford to live where they please.
The thing is you wouldn't be paying that much more, only 1-5% more on items you purchase. If you are a billionaire and are worried about a few percents per purchase, then you are incredibly, immensely frugal and I commend you. And that spiel about living where you want, sure go ahead, if you want to have a burdensome tax system.
This one was the kicker, under your idea of prebates, called proration elsewhere , families would have an adjustment to what their buying status would be and would thus be allowed subsidizing on that base. FUCKING LAUGH OUT LOUD!!!!!!! Explain just how the government would come anywhere close to accurately doing this. People are all far too different in their lifestyles to accurately predict this and there are soooo many factors. Just how would you know what people spent money on? Would they have to save and send in ALL of their receipts by April 15th?? That's rich.
It's called moderation or discipline. If you have to buy the most expensive clothes and most expensive food, then you will have to pay the extra amount leftover. You say this like people on welfare live so lavishly, and the rich people which you hate oh so much, don't need to worry about how much they are getting back from the government because they have plenty of money.
Last, but not least, you have neglected to mention state and local government. Current sales tax, from state to state, is used to subsidize state and local government. So, we're going to put on 23% on top of 6-10% local sales tax? Great!! Now this is really starting to make sense.
Yes there still would be a state sales tax, but there would be immense pressure from the citizens to either lower it or git rid of it completely. In 2003 alone, the states' revenues lost a combined $23 billion in internet sales. This amount will only increase in the next few years and will become taxed, giving the states enough money to be able to lower the state sales taxes to as low as 2%.
So now the sales tax would be around 25% where it is currently 22%, BUT you get to keep 100% of your paycheck. And yes I do admit, to my knowledge, that the sales tax alone could ebb and flow, but once again studies have been shown that on average, the 23% federal sales tax would keep the revenue neutral. I'm fairly confident in the FairTax though. I'm sure if you could check how much money is transferred through goods and services each year, it would be fairly stable.
