A thread for Dave...

[icenine]

the millionaire can afford the tax more on the $18 dollar baggie of chips than the poor person buying it for $4.00


and how many Mitt Romey's are there in our economy anyway?

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by JJIII

Assuming they and their heirs spend only the income earned on the wealth each year, the tax rate today is 15 percent. In contrast, under the FairTax, the effective tax rate is 23 percent. Hence, the very wealthy will pay more taxes when the FairTax is enacted.

OK, let's imiagine a guy who is only a little bit of a billionaire. he's got capital of $2 billion. His income, we'll say, is a very conservative 5% on that capital, $100 Million. Now he pays, perchance, 15% tax on said income, $15 million.

Under Fair Tax, he will pay 23% on taxed consumption. Solving for equal tax, if he spends about $65 Million on taxed consumption, he will pay $15 million tax as before. If he spends more on consumption, his tax will be greater than before, as you assert it will be.

But offhand, I'm not sure how he would do that. How does one consume $100 Million, or $65 Million, in one year?

Flying your jet? A big Boeing 747 runs some $33,000 per hour variable cost. That's the most expensive one I could find. Run it 400 hours a year and you'll have spent less than $14 M. And of course, that's going to be flying on business frequently, which won't count as consumption.

Besides, I bet even billionaires will settle for something a bit smaller.

Buying a new estate? That could be 10's of millions, but are real estate transactions taxed as consumption? Can't find a FAQ that clarifies that, but I get the impression that house and land aren't 'goods and services.'

You can spend a lot decorating your mansions, of course. But the Van Goghs and Rembrandts, and all the priceless antiques, won't be taxed. Used goods.

BTW, I don't see any discussion of luxury goods that aren't consumed, and may appreciate, in the FAQs. Things like gold, antiques, art, high-value jewelry, etc. But since they aren't consumed, they perchance aren't consumer goods, and aren't taxed, even if bought 'new?'

I'd be interested in credible estimates of the consumption tax on billionaires. Something sort of itemized. I'm just not sure they'd spend the dozens and dozens of millions expected, on taxable goods and services. They can only eat three meals a day, after all.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by icenine

the millionaire can afford the tax more on the $18 dollar baggie of chips than the poor person buying it for $4.00


and how many Mitt Romey's are there in our economy anyway?

I think you have a point there, as the Romneys hide most of their money over seas and therefore contribute very little to our economy.

[JJIII]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

OK, let's imiagine a guy who is only a little bit of a billionaire. he's got capital of $2 billion. His income, we'll say, is a very conservative 5% on that capital, $100 Million. Now he pays, perchance, 15% tax on said income, $15 million.

Under Fair Tax, he will pay 23% on taxed consumption. Solving for equal tax, if he spends about $65 Million on taxed consumption, he will pay $15 million tax as before. He he spends more on consumption, his tax will be greater than before, as you assert it will be.

But offhand, I'm not sure how he would do that. How does one consume $100 Million, or $65 Million, in one year?

Flying your jet? A big Boeing 747 runs some $33,000 per hour variable cost. That's the most expensive one I could find. Run it 400 hours a year and you'll have spent less than $14 M. And of course, that's going to be flying on business frequently, of course, which won't count as consumption.

Besides, I bet even billionaires will settle for something a bit smaller.

Buying a new estate? That could be 10's of millions, but are real estate transactions taxed as consumption? Can't find a FAQ that clarifies that, but I get the impression that house and land aren't 'goods and services.'

You can spend a lot decorating your mansions, of course. But the Van Goghs and Rembrandts, and all the priceless antiques, won't be taxed. Used goods.

BTW, I don't see any discussion of luxury goods that aren't consumed, and may appreciate, in the FAQs. Things like gold, antiques, art, high-value jewelry, etc. But since they aren't consumed, they perchance aren't consumer goods, and aren't taxed, even if bought 'new?'

I'd be interested in credible estimates of the consumption tax on billionaires. Something sort of itemized. I'm just not sure they'd spend the dozens and dozens of millions expected, on taxable goods and services. They can only eat three meals a day, after all.

The FairTax treatment of housing
© 2007 Americans For Fair Taxation. All rights reserved.
Page 2 of 10
The FairTax: Impact on home ownership
Some have attacked the FairTax on the grounds that
it eliminates the MID. When they do so,
they oversimplify, by judging the proposed consumption tax through the mechanisms of an
income tax. The FairTax does impose a tax on
all purchases of newly
constructed homes and
repeals the MID. But other pr
ovisions of the FairTax opera
te to encourage more home
ownership than the current code’s pe
rceived tax-advantaged treatment.
The current code requires homebuyers to pay
for a new home with after-payroll and after-
income tax dollars. No deduction is allowed for
the purchase of a home, and the price of that
home already reflects the taxes and compliance
costs imposed upstream, from timber costs to
framing labor. The largest ta
x incentive today for reducing th
e cost of buying a home is the
MID, an expenditure worth an estimated $72.6 billion by the Joint Committee on Taxation. In
addition to this benefit, the ta
x code partially excludes capital ga
ins (estimated at $22.9 billion)
and allows local property taxes (estimated at $19.6 billion) to be
deducted against income taxes.
Unlike the current regime, the Fair
Tax does not tax interest, imposes
a lower marginal tax rate on
new home purchases (see page 3
for a discussion of this point),
fully untaxes capital gains from
the sales of used or new prope
rty, and terminates cost-raising
tax and compliance expenses
imposed on upstream labor and materials.

From here... http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/TheFairTa...tOfHousing.pdf

[JJIII]

DQ, you have some fair questions. I'll try to find what I can and let you know what I find.

[JJIII]

Originally Posted by icenine

the millionaire can afford the tax more on the $18 dollar baggie of chips than the poor person buying it for $4.00


and how many Mitt Romey's are there in our economy anyway?

See "Prebate"

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by JJIII

See "Prebate"

You're repeating yourself, John.

We've all read that fairytale website as far as I can tell and the ideas as offered have holes so big you could drive a Buick through them. No offense.

[JJIII]

Originally Posted by bobabode

You're repeating yourself, John.

We've all read that fairytale website as far as I can tell and the ideas as offered have holes so big you could drive a Buick through them. No offense.

I'm not the only one.

I may be wrong, but I think that not all of us have read very much on that site.

[JJIII]

A little dated but the info remains the same.

http://fairtaxcometh.com/2012/10/22/out-of-left-field/

Here is a site that will makes you dizzy with the back and forth.

http://www.debate.org/opinions/would...ral-income-tax

[piece-itpete]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

... If you're affluent, you buy fancy high-end chips made from organic potatoes boiled in clover fed Black Angus fat from cows that slept on feather beds, cooked by a French chef and cost $18 a friggin' bag.

......

ROTFLMAO!!!

Pete