<p>rcmiller, are you kidding? Even the people who run the FairTax admit that it would result in an increased tax burden on middle-income Americans and a decreased tax burden on the very rich.</p>
<p>David Burton, chief economist of the Americans for Fair Taxation, agreed that those earning more than $200,000 would see their share of the overall tax burden decrease, admitting that "probably those earning between $40[thousand] and $100,000" would see their percentage of the tax burden rise.</p>
<p>The analysis shows that for people making between $24,000 and $42,500, their share of the total tax burden rises 2.6 percent under the "FairTax," from 8.5 to 10.1 percent. For those making $42,500 to $75,200, their share of the tax burden rises 2.5 percent, from 18.5 to 21.0 percent.</p>
<p>Those making more than $75,200, on the other hand, pay 0.9 percent less of the total tax burden under "FairTax."</p>
<p>Right there in black and white: The rich get richer and the middle class takes it in the shorts.</p>
<p>I think that what we have here is a difference of philosophy. Ideally I would love for everyone to be able to contribute to the financing of the equally. Pull their own weight if you will. Due to the amount of income people have, this has never been implemented nor is anything near it even being suggested. All that is being proposed is something that gives every person the opportunity to pay the same effective tax rate. If you look at the lovely chart that you provided, it speaks to just the type of disparity that makes our current tax code so unjust. Income over $200,000, that puts you in the top 2-3%, and as your chart illustrate those people are carrying HALF the tax burden in this country. I'm sorry, I just do not see how it is bad to reduce someone's burden from 25x their share to 23x their share. The majority of these people are small business owners anyway and the more burden they have the worse off we are all going to be when it comes to receiving goods and services. The IRS says that the top one percent pay 33% of the taxes, top five percent pay 55% and so on. We are long past due for a system that treats everyone the same.</p>
<p>Bottom line, our tax code at 60,000 pages is beyond anyones comprehension. And it would be nice to see it shrink does to a size that managed and allows people to feed their families before they feed the beast. The government. FairTax.</p>
<p>So what you're advocating is that people who have excess money should not have that money taxed by the state? I suppose then you also support:</p>
<p>Getting rid of the Earned Income Tax Credit (How can we support such a program if we don't tax $ away from the rich)
Raising minimum wage to compensate for the above, thus resulting in increased unemployment, as per supply and demand.
AND</p>
<p>More tax burden on the middle class, the same middle class that is struggling with tuition bills, children, and what-not.</p>
<p>I personally don't buy it. I'm personally not a fan of taxing less from the rich and giving back less to the poor.</p>
<p>Both the earned income tax credit and the minimum wage are policies that approach socialism. The E.I.C. is simply a 13th welfare check, and the minimum wage is simply a tax on business. They both pass the bill to someone else.</p>
<p>What people fail to realize is that raising taxes on upper income people is ultimately what is bad for the middle class. Simple as this, "rich" Americans produce, and the middle class consume. You tax a business owner for instance, that simply gets passed along to customers. It's important to realize that corporations don't pay taxes, they tack it on to the price of their goods. So taxing them more, just make the price higher. It works this way with food, service, gasoline, etc.</p>
<p>Now for the minimum wage, it's easy to understand how this is terrible for lower income people. A small business owner isn't going to eat the cost of a minimum wage, they just simply scale back on the number of people they employ or build it into their price point. The key is allowing the free market to be free. Government involvement involvement in economics is NEVER good.</p>
<p>That's such a foolish ideology. I suppose you didn't hear about Warren Buffett's complaints about how he gets taxed on a lower percentage than his secretary does? Or about the letter from the 100 or so rich people that got sent to the New York Times asking for more taxes?</p>
<p>Anyone familiar with economics knows that an increase in taxes on someone's personal income will not increase the costs to consumers. I believe we are talking about taxes on personal incomes, not taxes on corporations, so that response makes no sense.</p>
<p>For example: I am making $300,000 from my own business at the profit maximizing level. I cannot increase the price because we are living in perfect competition and I have no control over the price. Thus, at a 20% tax rate I end up with a net income of $240,000, while with a 30% tax rate I end up with an income of $180,000. Changing the price of my goods would be foolish because I would end up putting myself out of business. Other companies would come in and wipe those profits out; thus I'd lose in the long wrong. I'm still earning more than enough money to support the long hours I'm working to support the business, so there's no reason to want to get out of the business.</p>
<p>Especially for people in the very top echelon of the top 1%, this is how things work, and considering that they make the majority of the money in America, I think it's only fair that they get a good chunk of it taxed away.</p>
<p>I don't think you're going to see Bill Gates come out and make a commercial whining about his excess taxes in the near future.</p>
<p>Jets...the problem with Warren Buffett's assertion is that he does not have a great deal of income. So often you hear that "rich people" need to be taxed more. Problem is that "rich" people don't have too much in the way of income. Steve Jobs for instance, collects $1 a year from Apple, but he may collect millions in stock options, jets, and capital gains. How exactly do we go about taxing a jet in this instance?</p>
<p>It has long been understood that capital gains taxes have a great deal to do with how well the economy is able to. If one begins to talk about raising taxes on capital gains, which is how you would raise Warren Buffett's tax rate, then you have to look at the undeniable maladies that that brings with it.</p>
<p>What is so wrong with not redistributing the wealth in this country. You earn it through hard work, and you keep it by entitlement. Entitlement programs are completely wrong because you are the only person entitled to your money. Now, if Mr. Buffett would like to give his money to the federal government, I'm sure they would accept a personal check.</p>
<p>**What is so wrong with not redistributing the wealth in this country. You earn it through hard work, and you keep it by entitlement.</p>
<p>Because there are many many people who work harder than rich people ever will and don't have anything to show for it because they're only getting paid 5.85 an hour to work 10 hour days, 7 days a week as a maid or something. If you're born into poverty, it's not exactly easy to dig your way out of that hole.</p>
<p>the other thing is if we eliminate federal student loans a lot of us would benefit, because college costs would ultimately drop (in response to Paul wanting to eliminate the Department of Education)</p>
<p>It's hard to argue with a socialist mentality. You're entitled to think that what one person earns is the property of the state. I happen to think that is false. We know that at a certain level of redistributing wealth you take away incentive. While it may feel good to feed everyone with Warren BUffett's money, we know with a high degree of certainty that these sorts of things don't work. While the free market can leave some people out in the cold, there is simply no better way to do it. True or false: Capitalism > Socialism. Government involvement in the markets always fails. Have you been watching us try to dig ourselves out of the crappy socialist programs of FDR, because we are going to have to continue to do so.</p>
<p>Both of those monopolies were broken up by the government because they used unlawful tactics (predatory pricing, etc) to gain their monopoly. Government intervention is obviously needed some of the time. </p>
<p>This is one reason why you should refrain from using absolute statements that can be disproved with one counterexample.</p>
<p>It's hard to see your point. Standard Oil for instance wasn't a monopoly (depends on how you define the term).</p>
<p>Monopoly- "exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices."</p>
<p>Statistics show that prices went down during the rise of Standard Oil. They also had 147 competitors in 1911. Much the same as Wal-Mart, companies can be big and not ruin the lives of Americans.</p>
<p>It is much more fun to debate ideas though. And in principle, the government should remain out of economic affairs.</p>
<p>rcmiller: Your ideas are remarkably unsophisticated. There is a lot of truth to the idea that the free market is a more efficient allocation tool than command economy, but saying that any type of redistribution is automaticaly bad is incredibly incorrect, and very, very stupid.</p>
<p>A case in point would be how interventionist policies in East Asian countries such as Taiwan or South Korea brought them to where they are today, whereas free market ideology would not have worked as well (as has been seen in other countries, notably South American, with similar starting conditions).</p>
<p>I happen to think the free market is generally the best solution to issues of resource allocation, but there are lots and lots of exceptions.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Monopoly- "exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Both of those monopolies applied to the latter half of your own definition of monopoly.</p>
<p>Are these serious posts? Standard Oil had so many corrupt deals with the railroads that it was ridiculous. And all those competitors probably made up >10% of the market, unlike Walmart which has a myriad of big competitors (Target, Sears/Kmart, etc).</p>
<p>Anyone who has studied the Lorenz curve which shows the inequality of household income in the United States knows that in the past 30 years or so the country has become more and more unequal in terms of income distribution. Sometimes, even from an economists point of view, it would be a good idea to supplement some of the smaller incomes using tax revenue.</p>
<p>I do not really know who I will vote for yet but I do not know what to say about the republicans. I am a moderate democrat, very moderate at that. I believe in free enterprise though I believe in gay rights and abortion rights. </p>
<p>Huckabee really scares me and it is no wonder he took the Evangelical vote. They wanted to support the republican front runner, Guliani, but once he confessed that he was Pro-choice, this sick single interest group had nothing to do with him. Why would someone vote for a president one single issue, it is unlikely a president can do anything about pushing this issue into the policy agenda anyways. </p>
<p>I am currently looking at Hillary, Obama, and Romney. Guliani has had a bad past and only got good light because he happened to be the governor of New York during 9-11. Hillary supports issues too far to the liberal side such as illegal immigration. </p>
<p>Summing it up? I will probably look at Obama and Romney and I will definitely vote for Obama in the primaries.</p>