<%3Fxml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"%3F> Pfizer viagra impotence » CANADIAN PHARMACY - Canadian Licensed Pharmacy - LTD. ). According to the 2008 Fair Tax Prebate Schedual (), the annual consumption allowance for a couple is $20,800. So the annual prebate they would be getting now if the Fair Tax had passed in 2007 is $4,784- $399/month. Notice that this is exactly 23% of the annual consumption allowance. Also notice it has absolutely nothing to do with income. All it does is refund the tax on every dollar they spend upto the spending allowance. If they earn $30,000 a year, per your senario, they would only pay tax on $9,200. But the Fair tax is 23%, not 30%, because it is included in the price tag, not added on at the register. So they would only pay 23% on the remain $9,200 ($2,116) assuming they spend it. If they save anything they would pay less.

According to the 2007 Income Tax schedual (), a couple earning $30K and filing jointly had to pay 10% on their first $15,650 ($1,650) plus 15% on the remaining $14,350 ($2,152.50) which totals $3,802.50. Now I didn’t do the math but, I’m pretty sure they would have saved some money under the Fair tax.

Also keep in mind that more than half of the total income tax burden on the middle class is collected at the register rather than garnished from our wages. That’s because business never really pay taxes, we do. Taxes on businesses raise prices by about 22% and that effects everyone including the poor and elderly. The Fair tax does replace those hidden taxes with it’s own tax but, the prebate refunds 100% if it to the poor and the elderly so they stand to see a 22% drop in their cost of living. At the same time, corporations would save fortunes on income taxes. That’s a GOOD thing for everyone! It would untax the whole economy, create more jobs and allow American products to compete in the global economy. Foreign companies would bring trillions of investment dollars here to build new plants and create even more jobs. It all adds up to one thing- more power to the America people.

]]> Pfizer viagra impotence » CANADIAN PHARMACY - Canadian Licensed Pharmacy - LTD. http://baglady.dreamhosters.com/2007/12/11/is-there-really-a-fair-tax/comment-page-1/#comment-1013 Akop Wed, 16 Jan 2008 03:29:59 +0000 http://baglady.dreamhosters.com/2007/12/11/is-there-really-a-fair-tax/#comment-1013 Sales tax is regressive. Point. (Regressive tax means that people with larger incomes pay a smaller proportion of their income as tax and vice versa). Lower income people save relatively little, while the upper classes spend a smaller proportion of their income and save more. Therefore, a smaller proportion of the well-to-do people's income will be taxed. Because of this, the national sales tax will necessarily shift some tax burden onto lower income people. In fact, the sales tax is even more regressive than a flat income tax (tax is flat, when everyone's income tax rate is the same. In this country, the federal income tax system is meant to be progressive, meaning those who earn have a higher tax rate). This whole national sales tax initiative is a plot by the same people who argue that rich people should be taxed less and that the government as a whole should tax less and spend less. Reducing income taxes or making them less progressive is not feasible for various reasons. So, they're pushing for this entirely new, supposedly "fair" kind of tax. Of course, what's fair and what's not is debatable. The arguments against the national sales tax are the same as those against a regressive income tax. On the other hand, some say that since people derive utility from their wealth only when they spend it on something, only consumption should be taxed. Sales tax is regressive. Point. (Regressive tax means that people with larger incomes pay a smaller proportion of their income as tax and vice versa). Lower income people save relatively little, while the upper classes spend a smaller proportion of their income and save more. Therefore, a smaller proportion of the well-to-do people’s income will be taxed. Because of this, the national sales tax will necessarily shift some tax burden onto lower income people. In fact, the sales tax is even more regressive than a flat income tax (tax is flat, when everyone’s income tax rate is the same. In this country, the federal income tax system is meant to be progressive, meaning those who earn have a higher tax rate). This whole national sales tax initiative is a plot by the same people who argue that rich people should be taxed less and that the government as a whole should tax less and spend less. Reducing income taxes or making them less progressive is not feasible for various reasons. So, they’re pushing for this entirely new, supposedly “fair” kind of tax.

Of course, what’s fair and what’s not is debatable. The arguments against the national sales tax are the same as those against a regressive income tax. On the other hand, some say that since people derive utility from their wealth only when they spend it on something, only consumption should be taxed.

]]>
Pfizer viagra impotence » CANADIAN PHARMACY - Canadian Licensed Pharmacy - LTD. http://baglady.dreamhosters.com/2007/12/11/is-there-really-a-fair-tax/comment-page-1/#comment-900 Spencer Wed, 19 Dec 2007 14:07:02 +0000 http://baglady.dreamhosters.com/2007/12/11/is-there-really-a-fair-tax/#comment-900 Yes, the point of capitalism is to make more money. But no company sets prices in a vacuum. Prices cannot stay artificially high when costs come down. Someone else will come in and undercut you. Also, I can't see how FairTax would lead to more regulations for Small Business start ups. If anything it will greatly simplify the accounting for those businesses, which is a huge hump to get over when you expand a business from a couple people to more employees. Yes, the point of capitalism is to make more money. But no company sets prices in a vacuum. Prices cannot stay artificially high when costs come down. Someone else will come in and undercut you.

Also, I can’t see how FairTax would lead to more regulations for Small Business start ups. If anything it will greatly simplify the accounting for those businesses, which is a huge hump to get over when you expand a business from a couple people to more employees.

]]>
Pfizer viagra impotence » CANADIAN PHARMACY - Canadian Licensed Pharmacy - LTD. http://baglady.dreamhosters.com/2007/12/11/is-there-really-a-fair-tax/comment-page-1/#comment-893 Jason Mon, 17 Dec 2007 18:42:17 +0000 http://baglady.dreamhosters.com/2007/12/11/is-there-really-a-fair-tax/#comment-893 Point by point: Yes, paychecks will be bigger, and people may spend more... so for those foolish people, the change will be a wash. For more prudent people, it will be a gain. I highly doubt you'd see a net negative based on this aspect. Using your example for a couple that makes $35,000/yr and spends $30,000/yr, under the current tax system I highly doubt such a couple is walking away with any more than $2000 at the end of the year without some good (expensive) tax help. Any criticism that uses Warren Buffett as an example is highly suspect. He's an outlier in every sense of the word. For the poverty rate, that's a valid criticism, though it seems a pretty trivial problem to tackle, as you've noted. For corporations, sure, people are willing to pay $100 for something today, but those same people probably won't be willing to spend $130 on it tomorrow. Corporations will have to lower their prices to keep the total cost of the item within the same range that it's currently in. Though, honestly, how corporations will react is pretty much mostly conjecture at this point, there is a decent argument to be made in either direction, but capitalism works both ways: if one company keeps the price high to take in extra profit and another lowers their price to maintain profit and capture market share, which do you think consumers will choose? 50 state governments do not have to buy into it, as federal tax is wholly distinct from state & local tax. They'll have to option to model their taxes after the federal system, but it's not required for it to work and to benefit people. And, all of this ignores the expense (in both money and time) that people and corporations incur to comply with the current tax system. That's a savings beyond the basic tax rate, and it will have a significant impact. ------------------- Now, all of that said, I'm not an economist, and I don't have all of the answers. I support the Fair Tax because I think it's a net win. I wouldn't make the claim that it's perfect because I just don't have the kind of basis to make that claim. I like it on a personal level because it gives me control that I don't have otherwise. There needs to be changes made to the tax system, and this is the most viable proposal I've ever heard. The status quo is not sufficient. Point by point:

Yes, paychecks will be bigger, and people may spend more… so for those foolish people, the change will be a wash. For more prudent people, it will be a gain. I highly doubt you’d see a net negative based on this aspect.

Using your example for a couple that makes $35,000/yr and spends $30,000/yr, under the current tax system I highly doubt such a couple is walking away with any more than $2000 at the end of the year without some good (expensive) tax help.

Any criticism that uses Warren Buffett as an example is highly suspect. He’s an outlier in every sense of the word.

For the poverty rate, that’s a valid criticism, though it seems a pretty trivial problem to tackle, as you’ve noted.

For corporations, sure, people are willing to pay $100 for something today, but those same people probably won’t be willing to spend $130 on it tomorrow. Corporations will have to lower their prices to keep the total cost of the item within the same range that it’s currently in. Though, honestly, how corporations will react is pretty much mostly conjecture at this point, there is a decent argument to be made in either direction, but capitalism works both ways: if one company keeps the price high to take in extra profit and another lowers their price to maintain profit and capture market share, which do you think consumers will choose?

50 state governments do not have to buy into it, as federal tax is wholly distinct from state & local tax. They’ll have to option to model their taxes after the federal system, but it’s not required for it to work and to benefit people.

And, all of this ignores the expense (in both money and time) that people and corporations incur to comply with the current tax system. That’s a savings beyond the basic tax rate, and it will have a significant impact.

——————-

Now, all of that said, I’m not an economist, and I don’t have all of the answers. I support the Fair Tax because I think it’s a net win. I wouldn’t make the claim that it’s perfect because I just don’t have the kind of basis to make that claim. I like it on a personal level because it gives me control that I don’t have otherwise. There needs to be changes made to the tax system, and this is the most viable proposal I’ve ever heard. The status quo is not sufficient.

]]>
Pfizer viagra impotence » CANADIAN PHARMACY - Canadian Licensed Pharmacy - LTD. http://baglady.dreamhosters.com/2007/12/11/is-there-really-a-fair-tax/comment-page-1/#comment-851 Thane Eichenauer Sat, 15 Dec 2007 06:30:17 +0000 http://baglady.dreamhosters.com/2007/12/11/is-there-really-a-fair-tax/#comment-851 I think this article is pretty darn good. The author complains about two primary items, one: the Fair Tax is not hard enough on rich people and two: the Fair Tax is not hard enough on corporations. Guess what, the current system favors the rich and the corporations as they have accountants to structure their dealings. When is the last time someone who earned less than $20,000 had the time or energy to minimize their income tax? The only fair option is to junk the income tax completely (and replace it with nothing) as Presidential candidate Ron Paul wishes. http://whoisronpaul.name/ I think this article is pretty darn good. The author complains about two primary items, one: the Fair Tax is not hard enough on rich people and two: the Fair Tax is not hard enough on corporations. Guess what, the current system favors the rich and the corporations as they have accountants to structure their dealings. When is the last time someone who earned less than $20,000 had the time or energy to minimize their income tax? The only fair option is to junk the income tax completely (and replace it with nothing) as Presidential candidate Ron Paul wishes.

]]>