What's your best argument against the fairtax initiative?

Answer 1

In order to receive your prebate you would have to keep the government informed of your where abouts at all times. It inevitably would be used to control behavior. I can already hear politicians trying to win the votes of the virtuous, by denying prebates to drug users, sex offenders, smokers, SUV drivers, high school dropouts etc., they could then go on to war protesters, and Un-American activities. Saddam used universal welfare to control Iraq for years. It worked very well.

The advocates of the plan seem really clueless. For example the distinction they make between new and used goods is phony. The sales tax on a new house would effect the price of resale homes, and used cars are priced as a fraction of a new car price based on the useful life left. The people who are promoting the fair tax either do not understand how markets work, or they are hoping to mislead people who don't.

Answer 2

I am assuming that you are referring to a flat tax? In other words, everyone pays a fixed percentage of their income, say 22%, or whatever. On the face of it, this sounds very fair, hence the name "fairtax". There are arguments for and against this, but I will take the "con" side, as you request.

The "fairtax" initiative is anything but fair. It penalizes the needy and unjustly spares the rich. A progressive tax, in which the wealthy pay a higher percentage of their income, is actually more just. First of all, we all have to pay for some basic necessities, such as a roof over our heads, food, clothing, etc. The poor can barely afford to pay even for such necessities. 22% of 1,000 dollars a month is going to hurt A LOT more than 22% of 10,000 dollars a month. That is because a poor person will have very little "discretionary" money to spend. After basic expenses, there's nothing left. Taxing the poor the same percent as the wealthy essentially takes away any chance the poor can put aside any money at all for themselves and their families. Second, an argument can be made that the wealthy have more to gain by keeping our government solvent. The government maintains order and tends to preserve the status quo. Law and order prevail, commerce is protected. The wealthy have more to lose if the system collapses. Hence, they should pay more to keep things running. Finally, one can argue that government has an obligation to encourage charity and help the needy. By taxing the poor less, they are essentially being "given" money. Further, our current system taxes the wealthy more, BUT allows the wealthy to reduce their tax by contributing to charity. Lowering taxes for the wealthy may discourage charitable donations.

Answer 3

The FairTax is designed to make the government more efficient at collecting taxes. It is not about reducing the overall tax burden one cent!

The biggest problem America has right now is not how taxes are collected. It's how government revenue is spent. That's the problem. An amount equivalent to all the income taxes collected west of the Mississippi River accomplishes nothing but helping pay the interest on the national debt!

Please read this:
Problems of the FairTax by Laurence Vance
http://www.mises.org/story/1975

And also this:
The FAIRTAX: A TROJAN HORSE FOR AMERICA?
http://www.jpfo.org/fairtax.htm



cconsaul wrote:
"If I don't want my tax dollars to go to Iraq, then I should be able to say that the Government is allowed to spend money on education, roads, health care, social propgrams, but no Iraq."

Why don't you just assume that your $100 was spent on education? The truth is that the Iraq war does not make up 100% of government spending. The government spends money on lots of other things too, not just war in Iraq. Say that your money went on education and be happy.


yp wrote:
"The 'fairtax' initiative is anything but fair. It penalizes the needy and unjustly spares the rich. A progressive tax, in which the wealthy pay a higher percentage of their income, is actually more just."

First of all, I know that you meant to say "flat tax" instead of "fair tax" because fair tax is a different thing. If you want to know what it is, go here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax

Secondly, I think you really wanted to use the word "merciful" instead of the word "just." Mercy and justice are opposites, and it's really bad if you mix them up. It makes you entire sentence messy.

This is what you should have written:

"A progressive tax, in which the wealthy pay a higher percentage of their income, is actually more merciful toward the poor and unjust toward the rich."

Answer 4

A tax is by definition unfair. If we truly live in a capitalist economy, then government should compete for business just like everyone else. If they offer a product that we value, we should be willing to pay for it. If someone else offers a better or cheaper product, we should have the option of purchasing that one. If I send a hundred dollars into the government, I should have some say as to where it goes, and I should have some reassurance that I got my money's worth. If I don't want my tax dollars to go to Iraq, then I should be able to say that the Government is allowed to spend money on education, roads, health care, social propgrams, but no Iraq. This would give the people a unique new voice. We can literally put our money where our mouth is! In a truly capitalistic society, the Post Office and Social Security would have been out of business decades ago. A fair tax indicates that I get to choose who spends my money and what they spend it for. Anything less is just a Pyramid scheme run by a socialized Monopoly!