Comments on: The Flat Tax Is Not Flat and the FairTax Is Not Fair

By: theunknownamerican

theunknownamerican — Sat, 17 Apr 2010 05:30:28 +0000

I think most taxes are unfair and fall into the catagory of theft but I feel the sales tax is the most voluntary tax that exist because you can choose not to consume as much if you don't want to pay it. Also, if you are really upset at the government the nation can boycott it by not purchasing as much therefore not triggering the sales tax.

By: Jeff Matthews

Jeff Matthews — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 19:34:58 +0000

Alright, but doesn't the government need to repay the debt on those bonds, together with interest? Where does the money for repayment come from?

As to your first observation, I agree in principle. That was my point about taxing discretionary vs. non-discretionary income. Of course, there is ample room to discuss what is "discretionary." But in any event, the oppression and burden of taxation is felt in inverse proportion to the level of income being taxed.

The author/speaker in the recording might think it "fair" that everyone pay the same tax amount, but I don't. I think taxation is, and rightfully should be, designed to be as small a burden as possible. After all, it is the burden that has us all down about it, isn't it?

In terms of burden, I would measure that, not in how much money you pay, but how much the money you pay limits your ability to survive and prosper, together with the emotional impact which comes from the financial obligation of it. In other words, I would much rather be a billionaire and pay 50%, than a guy who makes 50,000 a year and pays 5%. Wouldn't you?

By: unfatmatt

unfatmatt — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 16:24:40 +0000

The problem with your criticism is that while you NEED to buy food, water, to live, you don't need to buy a 56 inch plasma screen tv, or a hummer, etc..

Now if you believe taxes are theft at the point of a gun, then the FedGov shouldn't have taxes. If we need something like…an army for fighting a war, then we could go back to the war bond drives instead. The war against the Japanese in WWII was funded by volunteer Americans through war bonds. Why wouldn't it work now?

By: Jeff Matthews

Jeff Matthews — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 14:36:36 +0000

Another problem with his analysis is that he posits: If taxing income is evil, why is it that people jump to the conclusion that taxing consumption is not as evil? Well, he's right, and in that regard, he points out that people have to consume to live, so you're basically taxing them for living.

However, then, he goes to the idea that a progressive tax is unfair and that the only fair thing to do is tax everyone the same, absolute amount of money. But, why doesn't he make the same distinction he did as above?

The progressivity of taxation is designed to make a distinction between income for necessities and discretionary income. So, what's unfair about not taxing income for necessities, while taxing discretionary income? Couldn't it be fair, under his (flawed) analysis, to have a system where income for necessities is tax free and all discretionary income is taxed at a flat rate?

No, because he thinks everyone should pay the same tax. My math tells me that would be over $17,000 in federal income tax alone for every working American. This, he would call "fair," but if we did that, we'd see how "fair" people really thought it was. They'd be up in arms, and we wouldn't even need a Tenther movement to get them going. Does he not realize that?