CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
This is really hard to tell just because I don't support the current system but I don't support the Fairtax system.
For a responsible government, I choose a Flat income Tax, one that taxes income (at a small rate, mind you) at the same percentage as everyone else. Everyone, mathematically, puts in their fair share. No loopholes, no cheating, no class warfare, and no butchering of the economy.
For now, I believe in a progressive tax that, over time, will be diminished and turned into a flat tax once we're out of this debt. Even so, the tax bracket, currently, is horrendous.
But my problem with the Fairtax is that it is basically charging us for spending money. One who doesn't buy many goods will be able to enjoy the benefits of government while hurting the private sector.
i understand that a flat income tax is charging you for working, but those who don't work will enjoy minuscule benefits. Not all goods and services can be taxed, especially since this would require that all business be monitored.
This of course asks if business be monitored to make sure that income is taxed properly, and yes.
Clearly the tax system is not the best system and we should be moving away from it as our age progresses. But I do not see the fairtax as the better system when it hurts the economy. What goods are taxed? Food? Food is a necessity. Why must people pay government just to be able to eat?
No, there is a better way to do all of this. I've got ideas... but this isn't the place for it.
So, in the end, the current tax system is a mess and taxes you for practically everything. Fairtax, at least, would keep it concentrated and minute, so it's technically better.
Yes, necessities are not taxed, and that includes necessary services such as doctor visits. There is a prebate for everybody which helps for necessities. Used houses, used cars, and so forth would not be taxed under the Fair Tax. A flat tax would not be enough revenue or would be either too much or too little. I think as we grow older, then Medicare and Social Security would kick in, but often, people have learned to save money where possible. I, personally, am for the Fair Tax.
Say you have 3 rich men who make 200 dollars in a period, and spend 50
say you also have 5 poor men who make 50 dollars in a period and spend 45 of it
Each lets say has a tax rate of 10%
Each rich man pays 5/200 percent of their income
Each poor man pays 4.5/50 percent of their income
The total taxes collected from the rich group is 15, and from the poor is 22.5.
The rich should pay more in taxes due to the decreasing marginal value of money, 4.5/50th vrs 5/200ths of a person's income is a significant difference, 4.5/50th may be the electric bill, but 5/200ths might be a luxury car payment instead of a normal car payment. By having the rich pay more, the poor can pay less, which contributes to the health of the market by allowing more people to actualize their demand, allowing for the rich to invest their money(and often effectively making their tax rate zero, for example if 150s is invested at 1/30 during the period, the tax burden is offseted, this 1/30 investment rate may very well only be possible due to the greater aggregate demand from less taxes on the poor, depending on the situation, the rich may even be richer due to such an arrangement of progressive taxation. )
While the system of loop holes we have now suck, at least we don't have the above situation where the poor is more or less raped for all their worth
The use of money in a market economy is a praxeologically necessary fact; therefore, the law marginal utility will suggest the opposite with relation to decreasing marginal value of money where this implies that poorer people will gain more utility from money for additional spending than the wealthy.
Do you care to use science, instead of the economic equivalent of creationism?
Any ways, that is my point. 1$ is worth more in utility to a poor person, than to a rich person; why should the government take away MORE from the poor person than the rich person?
Austrian School of Economics is science, which is the oldest school of economics in the world.
Utility and costs are subjective; thus it is impossible to compare the utilities of the poor to the rich based on individual value scales and choices caused by human action.
The labor theory of value has my support. At the very least, a cost has to be sufficient enough to pay for the labor which produced it, except in some rare situations.
Empiricism is just one of several views of epistemology, which uses induction reasoning while rationalism uses deductive reasoning, and epistemology is nothing but an branch of philosophy.
Therefore, some subjects are best using empiricism such as physics while some subjects are best using rationalism such as economics.
Austrian school economists reject the labor theory for its failure to account for the ever changing preferences of consumers.
Logic isn't science, but as wikipedia yet again puts it best, it is : "a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe."
"rationalism", a la wikipedia again: ' is a method or a theory "in which the criterion of the truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive."'
Now wikipedia might not be authoritative, but you'll find the history of science to be. After all, Galileo was a real keeper for the church due to his rationalism...
As for the labor theory of value not accounting for changing "preferences of consumers", you'll find that as the market extends, technology develops, and so on that the value of one thing in relationship to another changes, while labor stays constant, the value of labor to lets say money does not, and with more or less money or the "nominal value" of labor fluctuating so, you'll see changes in behavior.
If rationalism fits under the general philosophy of epistemology just as empiricism, they both are a science. Rationalism is just one different kind of science as aforementioned before.
The market extends only changes by preferences of consumers as well as technology only develops because of changes in preferences of consumers. Therefore, labor and production adjusts to consumer preferences and not the other way around.
that is called the flat tax system. the fairtax system does not mean everyone would pay the same amount of taxes. there would actually be no percentages to pay in taxes.
But the flat tax can be based on income so it is both a income and consumptions tax.
the current system taxes you for everything and then double taxes you and you don't even realize it until its to late.
in the current system the politicians don't pay taxes. what they do is what till you pay your taxes then use your money you payed your taxes with to pay their taxes so all in all they don't pay taxes and businesses do the same thing except they mark-up the prices of their goods to include part of their taxes so, once again, you pay their taxes for them.
How can the fair tax be based on income? If so, then it isn't a sales tax, and it is blatantly regressive if it is a flat tax on income.
Sure, the current system isn't the best, that isn't supportive of the fairtax system being better. I personally like to see most sales tax and most property tax eliminated.
it shouldn't be based on income. i would rather see the income tax eliminated because then it keeps the government out of your pay check every month, and at least you will know what you are paying for before you pay for it due to the fact that it is an imbedded sales tax.
Everyone pays taxes in the fairtax system. the only way to avoid taxes is to have a friend at the register not scanning items, but i don't think anyone would go to jail for anyone else unless their is something in it for them.
Alternatively businesses may under report their sales to save on taxes, or consider some sales to be donations, etc. Any ways, thats beside the point.
Everyone may pay taxes, but the poor would pay far more of their utility in taxes then the rich. The fair tax would create a greater divide between the rich and poor, and act as a barrier to social mobility, aka: it would damage the validity of the american dream.
the poor would not pay more taxes than the rich because the rich enjoy buying expensive stuff while the poor could not.
"The poor, along with everybody else, will no longer have Social security and Medicare taxes withheld from their paychecks. whatever they earn, they get on payday. If employers leave this money in paychecks instead of taking it out of price,most of those we categorize as poor would see an immediate 25 to 30 percent increase in their take-home pay.
even more taxes are inflating the retail prices we all pay for in the form of embedded taxes buried in the cost of all consumer goods. as soon as the competitive forces of free market work their magic, as they always do, consumers of all incomes will be paying less for virtually everything they buy, including the basics of food, clothing, shelter, and transportation. yes, they'll have to pay a national sales tax, but when you factor in the combined lower prices/higher take home pay caused by the disappearance of embedded taxes, you'll see that the total price paid for consumer goods will remain nearly the same.
the folks who wrote the FairTax plan knew that burdening the poor with a 23% retail sales tax would doom the plan from the outset. and since the FairTax was designed from scratch, as opposed to the current hodgepodge of rules and regulations we call "the income tax", its creators insured that no one should have to pay taxes on the necessities of life. That's why the prebate, the monthly check covering taxes on all basic household necessities, was invented.
the size of the monthly prebate will be based the governments published poverty levels for various-sized households. the number is updated every year to keep up with inflation, so calculating the work is already done. here's an example of how the prebate payments would work.
let's say your household consists of a married couple with two children. the FairTax sets forth a formula for computing the poverty level, based on government figures, witch negates any marriage penalty. under the fairtax act, your household would be granted an annual consumption allowance of $26,400. this is what the government estimates you will spend in a year on the basic household necessities for your family. the sales tax on this amount would equal $6,072. the government would rebate this amount to you in 12 equal installments of just under $506."
Sorry, but if you are looking for a way to oppose the FairTax plan, you are going to have to find a better excuse than its effect on the poor.
With the Fair Tax, only expenditures are looked at, so we wouldn't be considering income at all. The richer people would indeed spend more than poorer people and they would be more likely to be to spend more and so they would be taxed more; that is their choice. But as far as I can see, the Fair Tax is not regressive, it is more fair. BTW, the rate of the tax would be 23% inclusive. And remember, the prebate is for everybody.
its obvious that the rich have greater savings, which won't be taxed.
Sales taxes are basically equivalent to an income tax from an individual's perspective, they have some needs to be had, and must pay some tax to have those need meant. The poor has far less income than the rich, their savings will be less, and thus their tax will be a greater percentage of their income than it would be if they had more money, thus the fair tax is regressive. Its basic math
