Rich who pay no taxes...

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

So I was reading fark and came to this article by the huffington post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/04/irs-incomes_n_918458.html

Now, it doesn't surprise me that there are that some people who made a million+ didn't pay any taxes. We've even talked about the methods on this board before (Munies, Capital Losses, Overseas Taxes, etc). Of course, the writer of the article doesn't go into any of these methods and just makes the sensationalist headlines without talking about possible methods. To me, horrible journalism these days is much worse than the bias of the writer. :(

So I then read the comments at Fark

http://www.fark.com/comments/6451542/Taxed-Enough-Alreadyno-wait-I-meant-not-taxed-at-all-In-2009-1400-US-millionaires-paid-no-taxes-Oh-yeah-unemployment-at-91

Now, the commentary on Fark is 75% Liberal/25% Conservative. I find it an interesting place to see different points of view and whether they make rational sense. What immediately alarmed me was that there seems to be a fundamental lack of understanding of the tax code among this small cross-section of liberals. I mean I don't claim to be an expert on the whole thing, but I file my own taxes (even as a small business) and you pick up the general gist of it when you do that.

Now a quick google search nets the following article:

http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/09/pf/taxes/millionaires_income_tax/index.htm

This goes through a ton of methods the rich can avoid taxes and how to close the loopholes. Please note that Munies are the most common way used by notable rich people (Teresa Heinz-Kerry and Ross Perot) and is so entrenched that it is going to be hard as crap to untrench it. Pelosi tends to use the capital loss strategy as well as losses from operations in her winery empire.

The net/net of this is that taxing the rich is inhibited by the fact that the rich dominate Congress. And since each Congressperson will fight for tax breaks for their own particular portfolio it creates a plethora of tax breaks that other millionaires can take advantage of.

[SicEmBaylor]

So I was reading fark and came to this article by the huffington post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/04/irs-incomes_n_918458.html

Now, it doesn't surprise me that there are that some people who made a million+ didn't pay any taxes. We've even talked about the methods on this board before (Munies, Capital Losses, Overseas Taxes, etc). Of course, the writer of the article doesn't go into any of these methods and just makes the sensationalist headlines without talking about possible methods. To me, horrible journalism these days is much worse than the bias of the writer. :(

So I then read the comments at Fark

http://www.fark.com/comments/6451542/Taxed-Enough-Alreadyno-wait-I-meant-not-taxed-at-all-In-2009-1400-US-millionaires-paid-no-taxes-Oh-yeah-unemployment-at-91

Now, the commentary on Fark is 75% Liberal/25% Conservative. I find it an interesting place to see different points of view and whether they make rational sense. What immediately alarmed me was that there seems to be a fundamental lack of understanding of the tax code among this small cross-section of liberals. I mean I don't claim to be an expert on the whole thing, but I file my own taxes (even as a small business) and you pick up the general gist of it when you do that.

Now a quick google search nets the following article:

http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/09/pf/taxes/millionaires_income_tax/index.htm

This goes through a ton of methods the rich can avoid taxes and how to close the loopholes. Please note that Munies are the most common way used by notable rich people (Teresa Heinz-Kerry and Ross Perot) and is so entrenched that it is going to be hard as crap to untrench it. Pelosi tends to use the capital loss strategy as well as losses from operations in her winery empire.

The net/net of this is that taxing the rich is inhibited by the fact that the rich dominate Congress. And since each Congressperson will fight for tax breaks for their own particular portfolio it creates a plethora of tax breaks that other millionaires can take advantage of.

I feel for you when you say you filed your own taxes as a small business owner. My dad did as well (he also owned a small business) and we all DREADED tax time every year. He'd bunker down in his office for like 2 weeks with tax books, forms, receipts, etc and would barely eat or sleep until he finished. This of course put him in a rather bad mood especially when he started signing checks. :D

What a f'n nightmare the tax code is. A f'n nightmare. If there were one person responsible for it (which there isn't of course), they should be taken out and publicly pressed to death under the weight of all the tax law/code books he was responsible for.

[cccasooner2]

Even the Kudlos of this world see the advantage of a flat tax. Not sure how rich he is, but he dresses like it. Some people see a guillotine resurection in the future and want to avoid it. Others are too blind to see it coming.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

I feel for you when you say you filed your own taxes as a small business owner. My dad did as well (he also owned a small business) and we all DREADED tax time every year. He'd bunker down in his office for like 2 weeks with tax books, forms, receipts, etc and would barely eat or sleep until he finished. This of course put him in a rather bad mood especially when he started signing checks. :D

What a f'n nightmare the tax code is. A f'n nightmare. If there were one person responsible for it (which there isn't of course), they should be taken out and publicly pressed to death under the weight of all the tax law/code books he was responsible for.

I keep everything in Quicken throughout the year so it isn't that bad. I categorize and file as I go so tax time is more of a reconciliation with all the incoming statements and figuring out any possible methods to lower the estimated tax payments for the next year. [I don't have inventory which reduces the workload at tax time a LOT]

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Even the Kudlos of this world see the advantage of a flat tax. Not sure how rich he is, but he dresses like it. Some people see a guillotine resurection in the future and want to avoid it. Others are too blind to see it coming.

Aflac Duck Moment

[MamaMia]

A flat tax would prevent this.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

A flat tax would prevent this.

As I have said in several other threads. A flat tax is not a magic bullet for the realities of the US Economy. Reasoning:

US Income is divided into 3 categories -> Ordinary, Long Term Capital Gains, Exempt Income

LTCG for the most part is a flat tax - it does have exemptions though (you can offset it with a capital loss and sale of your home is excluded up to a certain amount).

Result -> Making LTCG a true flat tax would basically make it to where you couldn't afford to sell your home. This is because realtor fees could NOT be deducted as an expense to selling it. So even if you lost money on your home, you'd still owe money if you sold it for more than you bought it for.

Exempt Income -> Mainly Municipal Bonds -> I'm not altogether opposed to these being taxable as it would force fiscal responsibility on the states and cities since they'd never be able to borrow money for projects and would have to do it out of cash on hand. It would most likely result in higher local taxes though.

Ordinary Income -> This seems simple until you see that both STCG and Business/Farm Income is included here for 95% of the businesses in the US. Any form of flat tax would make it to where business expenses were excluded and you were taxing businesses off of sales regardless of whether they made a profit or not. If you allow deductions pre-flat tax then that is where the abuse of the system comes in and once again rich people will skirt taxes.

[Penguin]

Frozen doesn't pay taxes?

[tommieharris91]

Ordinary Income -> This seems simple until you see that both STCG and Business/Farm Income is included here for 95% of the businesses in the US. Any form of flat tax would make it to where business expenses were excluded and you were taxing businesses off of sales regardless of whether they made a profit or not. If you allow deductions pre-flat tax then that is where the abuse of the system comes in and once again rich people will skirt taxes.

This is also... unconstitutional.

[StoopTroup]

JKM...you make a great point. I remember in the 80s I think it was when they decided to close loopholes in the tax code so that it would be easier to process our taxes and for them to just process the refunds or pmts. I think it was to even try and help Businesses by eliminating the amount of things you could write off. Somehow since then it's seemingly reverted back to the way it use to be but now only benefits the folks who take the time to study the tax code or hire people or a Corporation to do it for them.

Now we look up a few decades later and find out the Poor and Middle Class or Lazy/stupid rich are the ones who foot the bill. Folks such as yourself are not the norm. Financial transactions happen so fast and there are so many of them that keeping track of them on your own is a Monsterous Job by years end that most of us probably pay a ****load more than we should.

I've considered putting time back into relearning the tax codes and setting up a weekly time to set down and take care of it all but life and the price of everything it takes to keep our lifestyles suffers.

I do think we will need to see a huge change in the tax codes no matter what it takes but we've heard politicians give it lip service for two decades now. Every time it starts to get serious attention some lobbyist group starts working on DC to STFU.

I think it's awesome that you are able to do that for your business. I have seen the Corporate side of it at one time and it took a bunch of folks to handle that. I applaud your commitment to keep in touch with it all. It has to be a very big sacrifice on your part.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

It really isn't as hard as you think. Quicken has gotten so smart that once it memorizes a type of transaction its automatically coded. It takes 10 minutes a day max to get everything loaded in and an hour a month to reconcile it. Now, doing ETCs on my day job sucks chicken gizzards but that is another story.

Also, I don't have a problem with the poor and lower income families paying zero income tax. What I have a problem with is them getting a rebate. The EIC needs to be redone so that if you claim it, you can never go below zero tax liability.

[diverdog]

This is also... unconstitutional.

How so?

[diverdog]

Even the Kudlos of this world see the advantage of a flat tax. Not sure how rich he is, but he dresses like it. Some people see a guillotine resurection in the future and want to avoid it. Others are too blind to see it coming.

And do you remember who lost their heads?

[cccasooner2]

And do you remember who lost their heads?


Sure do, it was Frog aristocrats. Don't want that again.

[SicEmBaylor]

Sure do, it was Frog aristocrats. Don't want that again.

Ehhh....after a point who constituted an "aristocrat" became highly subjective.
Translated into modern American society, basically, if you drive a Dodge or better then you're up **** creek.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

How so?

It may fall under apportioned (un?) which is specifically unconstitutional.

[tommieharris91]

It may fall under apportioned (un?) which is specifically unconstitutional.

Nope. In the case discussed, exclusion of revenues means you are taxing revenue, not income.

[diverdog]

Nope. In the case discussed, exclusion of revenues means you are taxing revenue, not income.

You have really got me scratching my head. Can you list the article and section that you are referring to? Because I have no clue. It is probably right in front of my face but I am missing it.

[MamaMia]

American corporations are taxed the 2nd highest in the OECD.

[tommieharris91]

You have really got me scratching my head. Can you list the article and section that you are referring to? Because I have no clue. It is probably right in front of my face but I am missing it.


The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

I kind of wonder how this affects personal taxes, but the amendment pretty clearly states income and not revenue.

[Ardmore_Sooner]

Screw the Flat Tax. Screw Income Tax.

We need a Fair Tax.

[diverdog]

I kind of wonder how this affects personal taxes, but the amendment pretty clearly states income and not revenue.

Okay, I got that part. What I am not sure of and I thought you were talking about it is specific items in the tax code that allow business to write off things like depreciation, business entertainment, business losses and other items that show them as having zero income.....mostly to avoid paying taxes. In other words, paper losses. I am not sure the Constitution addresses the nuisances of the tax code. Did I miss something?

[tommieharris91]

Hmm. Got any case law construing income in the context of the amendment as net and not gross?

I was looking for a case to back me up, but all I have is wikipedia and accounting knowledge. I am not a CPA though (yet.)

[diverdog]

Fair enough, and I'm not any kind of tax law guy at all (other than working half the damn summer on f-ing conservation easements). I'm just saying that I can't think of any reason we couldn't construe "income" as "gross receipts". Hell, half the sole prop owners I know list their gross receipts as their income on loan applications.

Yep and I have to sit down with them and explain to them the difference when they applied for a business loan.


Are you doing conservation easements for the state or a land conservancy?

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

You have really got me scratching my head. Can you list the article and section that you are referring to? Because I have no clue. It is probably right in front of my face but I am missing it.

Article 1, Section 2

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Its why we needed an amendment for income tax since it isn't apportioned according to the states.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Fair enough, and I'm not any kind of tax law guy at all (other than working half the damn summer on f-ing conservation easements). I'm just saying that I can't think of any reason we couldn't construe "income" as "gross receipts". Hell, half the sole prop owners I know list their gross receipts as their income on loan applications.

Seriously? No wonder there are so many defaults.

The biggest issue with a flat tax on business income is that the margins by business vary so much. This isn't even getting into the elaborate methods that businesses go through to avoid paying taxes.

[diverdog]

American corporations are taxed the 2nd highest in the OECD.

Given our convoluted tax system I am not sure that is an accurate statement. Even though the rate is high we give a lot of deductions to our corporations. I would be curious to know the average rate/percentage of taxes actually paid vs the tiered rate.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

American corporations are taxed the 2nd highest in the OECD.

While that may be true, we also have the easiest tax code in the world to get your business taxes to zero. All it takes is a foreign subsidiary and offshoring your manufacturing/IP.

Manufacturing:

Create Offshore subsidiary
Transfer manufacturing to control of that subsidiary
Sell Product back to US Mother Company for X more than it costs to make where X = Profit Margin
Pay $0 (or less) US Taxes

Software (Google/Microsoft)

Create Offshore subsidiary
Transfer Patents/Trademarks/IP to subsidiary for 1 cent
Lease back patents to US Mother Company for X where X = Profit Margin
Pay $0 (or less) US Taxes

etc etc etc

Honestly, you could make an argument that eliminating corporate taxes altogether would be better than the situation we have now. We are bleeding jobs...

[cleller]

Here's something else to consider. I retired from my job in 2009. I then began construction on a new home on a farm we'd bought in 1999.
Because of the tax credits for renewable energy, I elected to go with geothermal heat/air. Without the credit, I would not have done this. My credit for this was $6900. This, along with standard deductions, left me owing no federal taxes for 2009.

The good news is that this provided work for the geo well drillers, and the geo unit, a Climatemaster, was built in OKC.

So I had a year with no taxes, but it was a small potato deal.

[85Sooner]

any tax plan based on "income" is bad. Cannot be viable because it relaies on the "definition" of income. Spending is spending the FAIR tax is the only comprehensive plan that covers all aspects.

[oumartin]

I don't think the rich mind taying taxes. I don't think the middle class mind paying taxes, I don't think the hard working lower class mind paying taxes.

What we don't want is distribution of wealth and our taxes going to support the majority of the Obama backers.

[bigfatjerk]

any tax plan based on "income" is bad. Cannot be viable because it relaies on the "definition" of income. Spending is spending the FAIR tax is the only comprehensive plan that covers all aspects.

I wouldn't be to upset with a flat tax but the Fair Tax is the best way to go for the way we are as a nation. But it would end special interest groups overnight so I don't see any democrats and most republicans going along with it. Both parties are too entrenched with special interest groups.

If we simply raise tax on the rich more of that potential revenue will go into bond markets to where it won't even be touched by the Fed gvt or it'll go overseas and you'll have fewer people claiming to be making that much money. Both making less revenues go the Fed gvt. That's why a complete change in the tax system is the best way to go.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Fair Tax is radio-pumped hype and scam for the pundits to have something they deem is amazing and revolutionary with an automatic, built-in LACK of conterargument because folks with half a lick of sense won't argue it because it's off-the-reservation ridiculous.

It's a damn sales tax. Multiple reasons that's retarded.

A) Sales tax is dynamic and inconsistent. Ask any municipality in the state of Oklahoma or other states that rely predominantly on the receipts of its jurisdictional sales and you'll find a jurisdiction praying for a means to tap into ad valorem dollars instead. Budget projections are a nightmare and inaccuracies in projections and budgeting directly affect available project and departmental funds. "Then fire their ***! Lean government!" Right? Yeah? It's hard enough to do on a municipal level. Now do it on a federal level. Now do it across differing states with different tax codes themselves. It's moronic at best. Sorry, Americans. We can't buy bullets and flak jackets for our boys because we didn't allow for the delayed shipment of hockey pucks from Saipan to sporting goods stores. Or Bubba ain't buying enough ho-hos so we have to have an overall force reduction.

B) Your working capital as a nation is dependent on Bubba buying hot dogs. And cheap chinese televisions. While the overall economic health of the nation is somewhat based on consumerism now, where will it be when our nation's income source is ENTIRELY based on it? It will be our government's motivation to get us to blow our cash on anything and everything, NOT to increase employment which equals increased dollars as it is with an income tax.

C) Large purchases, anyone? Because businesses are so loving and amazingly so much your pen-pal and friend, and because they're saving so much money by the government removing so much of their tax burden (keep swinging Boortz, you f*&king moron), those savings will obviously be translated into the point of sale and the sales tax increase will simply make up the difference! Your price won't only stay the same, it'll eventually DECREASE as markets correct! Yaaaaaay! Horse****. Businesses will strive to maintain the existing price point on goods, period. If not take advantage of the supposed decreases to state that our product is 20% cheaper than before, all while NOT mentioning the 30% tax you'll have to pay on the purchase. Smoke and God damned mirrors, people.

D) Could we get on the nuts of the Chinese a little bit more? Instead of working our butts off to keep people working, hence an income tax, we're wholly dependent on people buying crap. Doesn't matter what, just BUY BUY BUY. Stuff from China. Now not only is our manufacturing sector ***-out because we're shipping it in cheaper than we're building it, those Red bastards got us by the sack in that our governmental revenue revolves around our very own citizens buying their trash. Not to mention we already owe them brazillions because we can't get off our spending orgy. So let's just change our name already. The United States of China. China-lite. China McChinnuts.

If enough folks would step back and see how BAD sales tax is as a revenue generator, this would make sense. Folks would see that with an income based system, regardless of how rough an economy may be, the focus for governmental revenue SHOULD be on making sure folks stay working which in turn keeps the people fed and keeps the coffers full. The alternative is to make sure folks keep SPENDING. I don't want to spend, I want to save. And with a Fair Tax system, by doing the RIGHT thing, you're putting a bullet in the head of our government.

[cccasooner2]

Hmm. Got any case law construing income in the context of the amendment as net and not gross?

The more I think about it, unless you have some case law putting a judicial gloss on "income", the more I don't think your argument works. "Income" is an ambiguous term, and the government has statutorily defined what "income" is since the enactment of the federal income tax.


Why do we have a history of 200+ years of elected lawmakers that have no idea on how to write laws? Why do they always seem to write laws that are ambiguous? Then, if they are unambiguous, the lawmakers say it was not per the original intent and change it to be ambiguous. :mad: Job security?

[tommieharris91]

States that don't have an income tax, but only a sales tax may have seen their revenues decrease per resident due to less buying. Yet, these are the states that have seen their economy not hit nearly as hard as income tax states. In fact, states like Texas and Florida have seen an influx of producers who will bring more revenue to the states.


There isn't any correlation between a state having no income tax (or, in the case of TN and NH, taxes on only dividend and interest income) and unemployment rates. (http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&ctype=l&strail=false&nselm=h&met_y=unemployment_rate#ctype=l&strail=false&nselm=h&met_y=unemployment_rate&fdim_y=seasonality:S&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=state&idim=state:ST120000:ST480000:ST530000:ST320000:ST5 60000:ST310000:ST330000:ST470000:ST020000&ifdim=state&tdim=true&tstart=1197007200000&tend=1310014800000&hl=en&dl=en) Your statement that having no income tax brings producers to those states looks pretty false when matched against the data, especially when you consider why Boeing is trying to move their plant from WA to SC.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

tommie,

Washington has a flat corporate tax on sales. I should know, I have to pay the stupid thing (2.85%). This number is regardless of whether you make a profit or not so bad quarters really, really suck. Also if you buy any equipment, you have to pay 10% property tax on that equipment.

Of course, the primary reason Boeing is moving has to do with the Union strike, but I'm sure the crappy B&O tax has something to do with it as well.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

I'm sure the likes Buffet would max out his deductions, but since there is a cap, he would still end up paying a higher rate than his secretary. We would get rid of all the major loopholes. Everyone would get a shot at the 40K income tax exemption and every dollar would be counted the same.

Buffet is NEVER going to pay higher income taxes than his secretary.

[pphilfran]

Buffet pays more in taxes because of SS limits and his ltcg being charged at 15%...

Buffet stated that his sec paid 30% in taxes...while he, without trying to avoid paying taxes, paid a paltry 17.7%...

If you include fed, SS, State, and sales tax his secretary might make it to the 30% bracket...hell, the HIGHEST bracket she was in was 25% of everything she made over $30,650...

Mr. Buffet was not factual about what his sec paid...and he was not factual when he stated he was not trying to avoid paying a higher tax rate...if he is not trying to save taxes why does he only take a 100k salary and then get the rest of his income from LTCG (15%) from his stock ownership?

Now people want to raise LTCG rates from the current 15%...

So Joe Blow invests 100k in a stock that grows to 102k after 5 years...Joe then sells the non performer and now must pay taxes on the sudden 2k windfall...

[pphilfran]

With a flat tax as I suggested, he would indeed pay a higher rate than his secretary.

The sec would still pay higher when you include SS taxes...which Mr Buffet and all the others include when doing their tax rate calculations...

[pphilfran]

The are at least three separate tax issues that get complained about...

1. The limit on SS
2. The LTCG rate
3. Deductions and loopholes

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Buffet pays more in taxes because of SS limits and his ltcg being charged at 15%...

Buffet stated that his sec paid 30% in taxes...while he, without trying to avoid paying taxes, paid a paltry 17.7%...

If you include fed, SS, State, and sales tax his secretary might make it to the 30% bracket...hell, the HIGHEST bracket she was in was 25% of everything she made over $30,650...

Mr. Buffet was not factual about what his sec paid...and he was not factual when he stated he was not trying to avoid paying a higher tax rate...if he is not trying to save taxes why does he only take a 100k salary and then get the rest of his income from LTCG (15%) from his stock ownership?

Now people want to raise LTCG rates from the current 15%...

So Joe Blow invests 100k in a stock that grows to 102k after 5 years...Joe then sells the non performer and now must pay taxes on the sudden 2k windfall...

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/it?s=BRK-A+Insider+Transactions

Not seeing any stock sales from Buffet. I see a lot of donations and subsequent sales from a certain foundation, but no personal sales. THAT is why he'll never pay more than his secretary.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

With a flat tax as I suggested, he would indeed pay a higher rate than his secretary.

No he wouldn't. Most of his wealth is tied up in berkshire stock. They don't pay a dividend, he doesn't sell it, so almost all of it is untouchable.

His compensation per year is $175k of which $100k is salary (75k only realized on sale). His secretary most likely is selling her stock, which is why she has a higher marginal rate (since she is actually making more than he is in any calendar year).

You have to step back and stop looking at taxes from a paycheck to paycheck view. You can't make the rich pay taxes, all you can do is lower them to a point to where they don't care about the lost cash.

[pphilfran]

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/it?s=BRK-A+Insider+Transactions

Not seeing any stock sales from Buffet. I see a lot of donations and subsequent sales from a certain foundation, but no personal sales. THAT is why he'll never pay more than his secretary.

That too...but why is he only taking 100k in salary?

I promise you he is living a lifestyle that requires more than 100k in salary...I do know he drives old clunkers and has lived in the same modest home for decades...

[pphilfran]

No he wouldn't. Most of his wealth is tied up in berkshire stock. They don't pay a dividend, he doesn't sell it, so almost all of it is untouchable.

His compensation per year is $175k of which $100k is salary (75k only realized on sale). His secretary most likely is selling her stock, which is why she has a higher marginal rate (since she is actually making more than he is in any calendar year).

You have to step back and stop looking at taxes from a paycheck to paycheck view. You can't make the rich pay taxes, all you can do is lower them to a point to where they don't care about the lost cash.

An excellent point on her actually "making" more than he does in a given year...

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

That too...but why is he only taking 100k in salary?

I promise you he is living a lifestyle that requires more than 100k in salary...I do know he drives old clunkers and has lived in the same modest home for decades...

I think a lot of his outside wealth derives from the initial partnerships that formed BH. I know he netted quite a bit of cash in that time and the outside investments probably net him quite a bit. Probably one of the reasons his marginal rate is so low is that LTCG and certain dividends are now taxed at 12%.

[pphilfran]

I think a lot of his outside wealth derives from the initial partnerships that formed BH. I know he netted quite a bit of cash in that time and the outside investments probably net him quite a bit. Probably one of the reasons his marginal rate is so low is that LTCG and certain dividends are now taxed at 12%.

He has plenty of options....

[SoonerBBall]

Fair Tax is radio-pumped hype and scam for the pundits to have something they deem is amazing and revolutionary with an automatic, built-in LACK of conterargument because folks with half a lick of sense won't argue it because it's off-the-reservation ridiculous.

It's a damn sales tax. Multiple reasons that's retarded.

A) Sales tax is dynamic and inconsistent. Ask any municipality in the state of Oklahoma or other states that rely predominantly on the receipts of its jurisdictional sales and you'll find a jurisdiction praying for a means to tap into ad valorem dollars instead. Budget projections are a nightmare and inaccuracies in projections and budgeting directly affect available project and departmental funds. "Then fire their ***! Lean government!" Right? Yeah? It's hard enough to do on a municipal level. Now do it on a federal level. Now do it across differing states with different tax codes themselves. It's moronic at best. Sorry, Americans. We can't buy bullets and flak jackets for our boys because we didn't allow for the delayed shipment of hockey pucks from Saipan to sporting goods stores. Or Bubba ain't buying enough ho-hos so we have to have an overall force reduction.

B) Your working capital as a nation is dependent on Bubba buying hot dogs. And cheap chinese televisions. While the overall economic health of the nation is somewhat based on consumerism now, where will it be when our nation's income source is ENTIRELY based on it? It will be our government's motivation to get us to blow our cash on anything and everything, NOT to increase employment which equals increased dollars as it is with an income tax.

C) Large purchases, anyone? Because businesses are so loving and amazingly so much your pen-pal and friend, and because they're saving so much money by the government removing so much of their tax burden (keep swinging Boortz, you f*&king moron), those savings will obviously be translated into the point of sale and the sales tax increase will simply make up the difference! Your price won't only stay the same, it'll eventually DECREASE as markets correct! Yaaaaaay! Horse****. Businesses will strive to maintain the existing price point on goods, period. If not take advantage of the supposed decreases to state that our product is 20% cheaper than before, all while NOT mentioning the 30% tax you'll have to pay on the purchase. Smoke and God damned mirrors, people.

D) Could we get on the nuts of the Chinese a little bit more? Instead of working our butts off to keep people working, hence an income tax, we're wholly dependent on people buying crap. Doesn't matter what, just BUY BUY BUY. Stuff from China. Now not only is our manufacturing sector ***-out because we're shipping it in cheaper than we're building it, those Red bastards got us by the sack in that our governmental revenue revolves around our very own citizens buying their trash. Not to mention we already owe them brazillions because we can't get off our spending orgy. So let's just change our name already. The United States of China. China-lite. China McChinnuts.

If enough folks would step back and see how BAD sales tax is as a revenue generator, this would make sense. Folks would see that with an income based system, regardless of how rough an economy may be, the focus for governmental revenue SHOULD be on making sure folks stay working which in turn keeps the people fed and keeps the coffers full. The alternative is to make sure folks keep SPENDING. I don't want to spend, I want to save. And with a Fair Tax system, by doing the RIGHT thing, you're putting a bullet in the head of our government.

A) Yearly consumption in the US is more stable than yearly wages. Also, we are the most consumptive culture in the history of the world. Your entire point about stability of tax base is moot.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/36/TaxbaseStability.png

B) Our government's motivation would be to repatriate as much business as possible that was lost overseas due to our current ridiculous tax system. More jobs = more people with money = more consumption. Getting people to spend marginally more money is far less enticing then expanding your current consumer base.

C) Businesses strive to stay in business to make money. As long as the government does its job and prevents price-fixing, then companies will continue to try to compete with each other on price and quality, as normal. Also, you will be taking home more money, so you will have more money to spend. Your percentages are also off, but don't let that stop a good, emotion-based, fact-less rant.

D) Do you live in some dream world where people make money without working? Highlighting an income tax as a reason to keep people working is just awful. People should work because they like what they do or to earn money for themselves, not the government. Also, by implementing a national sales-tax and removing all other federal taxes, you will bring a whole lot of business back to the US which will generate a ton of money and serve to drive down prices domestically, all while pulling business out of China because the US would be a more attractive cost center.

In essence, your whole post is entirely ignorant of the true facts of the Fair Tax and of a national sales tax in general. Our current system encourages class warfare and has driven the savings rate among US citizens negative over the past several decades. The Fair Tax aims to put money back into our hands to do with as we please, be that spend, save, or invest. If you actually took time to understand it you would see that it encourages the very things you want, since by your own admission you "don't want to spend, I want to save."