English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

11 answers

It would reduce taxes on those earning the most and raise taxes on those earning the least. Go do a few google searches on those funding this effort.

2007-12-29 11:08:23 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

I think you must have misunderstood CNN's report. Are you sure they weren't saying that a fair tax would raise revenue by 35%? I'm no economist, but I don't believe raising the taxes for all Americans, by 35%, would be possible.

2007-12-29 08:27:17 · answer #2 · answered by Crystal Blue Persuasion 5 · 1 0

No, what CNN (probably Ali Velshi--he's clearly biased against the Fair Tax) said was that the Fair Tax would be 35% (in reality, it would be closer to 20-25%). However, they would also remove almost all other taxes. No income tax, death tax, social security, etc.

Basically, with the Fair Tax, you're not taxed on what you make, but on what you spend. That 20-25% tax would be on stuff you buy--cars, houses, TV sets, etc. Also, depending on your income level, you would also get a certain tax refund amount, so basically, it's up to you whether you pay more in taxes or less.

2007-12-29 08:32:48 · answer #3 · answered by Chris_Knows 5 · 1 1

You did not hear it correctly. The so-called fair tax would be 23 to 35% added on to what you purchase. Don't buy anything and your taxes will go down.
There is no such thing as a fair tax. All taxes are bad.

2007-12-29 08:48:14 · answer #4 · answered by regerugged 7 · 1 1

I don't think it would on ALL Americans. The rich will avoid the bulk of the "FairTax" (they can easily do that).

What you will see is the destruction of the middle class and you will see a MASSIVE decline in the standard of living, possibly to the point of NEEDING Medicaid, welfare, bankruptcy, of the ILL in America as their medical expenses ALONE shoot up 30% or more.

You see, the "FairTax" is NOT 23%--it's 30%.
" And the 23 percent figure is itself a matter of hot dispute. In effect, what costs $1.00 now would, under the new tax, cost $1.30. How is that not a 30 percent tax? Proponents argue that the extra 30 cents is merely 23 percent of the final price of $1.30."
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1207/page.php3

They also LIE in the proposal all over the place.

FACT: The IRS can NOT be abolished because SOMEONE must collect the taxes and issue the bogus "prebates." I don't care if you RENAME it, the cost is THERE.

FACT: It does NOTHING to decrease government spending which is clearly out of control.

FACT: It does NOTHING about the amount of tax in a gallon of gas and here's another fact about gas prices:
"After crude oil costs, gasoline taxes are the second largest contributor to the price paid at the pump. Together Federal and State excise taxes on fuel account for an average cost of approximately 62 cents per gallon. That's a combined tax of about 20% per gallon of gas.

The federal tax per gallon is 18.4 cents per gallon, see the history of federal gasoline taxes here, and the state tax per gallon varies by state, see the complete list of state gasoline taxes here.

Average profit per gallon of gas for oil companies: 10 cents according to the EIA"
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2007/05/gasoline-taxes.html

FACT: It does NOTHING to prevent the feds from putting MORE financial burden on the state for assorted programs, thus meaning the citizens again have ANOTHER tax hike--this time at the state level. Who cares which arm of the government is picking your pocket?

FACT: It does NOT prevent the tax rate under the "FairTax" from climbing.

This is a freaking BOMB waiting to destroy the middle class.

2007-12-30 04:48:06 · answer #5 · answered by heyteach 6 · 0 1

Sadly I believe that you are correct. I only saw a bit but it's true. The Fair tax is raising and many people are not happy about it. I mean, would you be?? I'm not.

2007-12-29 08:26:25 · answer #6 · answered by Kenshin 4 · 0 1

That is absolutely false but true to CNN's biased reporting. Go Wolf.

2007-12-29 08:55:41 · answer #7 · answered by robbie 6 · 1 0

Given that it was CNN, I'm sure that they didn't spend a single second on the SPENDING side of the equation. As such, what they stated is bogus.

2007-12-29 08:32:58 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Who watchs CNN what next BBC

2007-12-29 08:46:02 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Whenever one mentions taxes, the spin artists fiddle with the numbers so much one can never be sure what's best. However, whatever happens, we can bet the ultra-rich will not be paying a share that's comparable to yours. They'll still get off paying next to nothing.

2007-12-29 08:31:25 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

fedest.com, questions and answers