3 ms·
1) Yup. Encourages saving/investing over spending, and credit for more spending. Not a loophole, this is a win. 2) Yes, a very rich person owning a farm, and t
by psadauskas 16y ago
1) Yup. Encourages saving/investing over spending, and credit for more spending. Not a loophole, this is a win.
2) Yes, a very rich person owning a farm, and the tractors to farm. No private jet, no Ferrari, no mansion. If someone is able to produce every luxury item they need, from scratch, then yeah, that wouldn't be taxed. But its such a tiny minority, I don't think it matters.
3) Um, ok? Sounds like the person that owned it for the one day got hosed.
4) I think thats good, too.
There are problems with FairTax, to be sure, but you listed none of them.
- mkramlich 16y agoI pointed out 4 loopholes which let one evade paying any taxes at all to the Federal government under this system. Meanwhile, said citizen would still be benefiting from the expenditures made by that same government (defense, highways, welfare net, etc.) I didn't even list all the loopholes or flaws with it (for example, no gift tax allows some pretty evil hacks to evade paying taxes as well. Also a citizen could buy goods and services from foreign countries and have them mailed home to him, and pay no tax to Fed govt.) Therefore from my perspective it's a horribly broken proposal as it stands now. Also any tax scheme which allows the rich to not pay any taxes at all, while still requiring working class to do so, cannot be described as a Fair Tax. If anything the name is an Orwellian mindfuck where the substance is the opposite of the surface. What's good about it is the attempt to drastically simplify the tax code and reduce the amount of government spying on private lives. That goal (assuming that was their actual goal) is noble. The means described, however, are not.