Bush argues that tax cuts result in raised governmental revenues, but nobody believes it. I doubt he believes it. The Atlantic Monthly did a revue of current thoughts on that theory a couple months ago, but I don’t have it handy.

If you’re going to make spending cuts, what do you cut? The war in Iraq? Social Security? Education? Welfare? And how do you make that transition?

I’m not suggesting that there aren’t answers, and maybe you’ve answered them to your liking, but if you want to plan for a revolution, you need to keep your eyes on the fallout after the revolution.

I’m not talking in absolutes here; I’m simply mentioning contributing factors.

I understand your explanation of transparency regarding a consumption tax, and I agree. It’s very similar to when congressmen attach “riders” onto bills to secure funds for completely different programs and initiatives that sometimes have little, if anything, to do with the bill they’re riding the coattails of. Accountability and transparency are important. I want to know what Uncle Sam is doing with my money.

I’m not concerned with the statistic of our taxes being the lowest in 20 years. It’s still an issue, regardless of where we were at 5, 10, or 20 years ago. DUIs might be lower than they were ten years ago, but hey, they’re still bad! Granted, such a statistic indicates some progress, but sometimes slow progress isn’t the best thing. Sometimes revolutionary change is necessary.

Your essential argument is that you pay too much in taxes. It’s a fair argument (although, at least at the federal level, taxes are the lowest they’ve been in at least 20 years, if not since the imposition of the tax code). I object more to the form–you argue by analogy to the Lamanite taxation of the people of Limhi, an analogy that doesn’t work on any level (except maybe tax rate, although I’d vigorously debate that).

If what you want is transparency, that’s not an issue of taxation. If you want to pay less, that’s partly an issue of taxation. The tax code is a popular scapegoat, and is admittedly overly complex and has too many carveouts, and doesn’t measure perfect Haig-Simmons income, but it is not the cause of unaccounted-for money. That’s the politicians. And, like I said, you can cause the current politicians to be voted out, and vote in people you like better. Heck, you can even run yourself. The people of Limhi didn’t have these options, and paid half of what they had on some sort of schedule (regular or on-demand by the Lamanites).

This is true, we do (sort of) have representation. However, “having a say” in the tax also, in my mind, connotes knowing what such taxes are used for. Transparency in government is crucial, since the government works for “We, the People”. Having $2.3 trillion dollars unaccounted for is appalling in my mind, and just as bad as taxing people without representation.

It was half of what they had…

True, but with all the various taxes there are (income, social security, medicare, sales, gas, property, phone, etc.) this pretty much equates to being taxed on everything I have…

Two differences, both of which, I believe, are significant. First, the people paying the Lamanites had no say in the tax. We have democratic procedures to give us a voice in the taxation of us. If you say, on a practical level, we have no individual say, that’s a problem with the process, not the tax.

Second, and more importantly, the BoM tells us very little about the tax. It was half of what they had (as opposed to half of their income, or half of their income minus charitable deductions, etc.) (except, apparently, it was half of the increase of their flocks). And we don’t know on what schedule this half was taken–was it half monthly? yearly? biannually?

Your taxation, on the other hand, is not close to 1/2 of what you have or possess–it may approach 1/2 of your income, although you’d have to have significant income for your marginal rate to approach 50% (esp. since Medicare, I believe, phases out at a certain point), and live in NYC, CA, or DC for the state tax to add up.

The same source gives 16.2% for 1985; I don’t know where these Grace Commission people got their 100% figure, but I can guess.

One data point from 22 years ago?

I can see that we need to work on recognising valid supporting evidence.

As for health care, that is such a tough call. It seemed, from the limmited contact I had with health care in Australia and from the experiences of other missionaries, members, or other people we knew that although everyone has access to health care in Australia, it is of a bit lower quality than care in the US. I think the trade off is worth it, but not everyone agrees. A single payer system, even if less effective in producing top quality care, certainly is more efficeint in providing care and using funds for actual health care than the system we have in the US.

I served my mission in Perth (Pres’s. Campbell/Innes), came back to USA and got my BA and MA from BYU, and then went back. I’ve been living here for about 10 years.

Australia is a pretty cool place, and Perth is beautiful. The beaches are gorgeous. When I went to the beach at Barcelona a few years ago, I was actually disappointed! What’s all this brown sand? Wouldn’t mind staying.

I understand complaints about taxes — I really do. We get a higher percentage taken off than the USA, (it’s more progressive BTW). But you should see the stuff we get back! Health care is much more affordable than in the USA, and we don’t break the bank by covering our people. There’s a good welfare program in place, and the state-run media is fantastic. You wouldn’t think they do a better job of self-monitoring than privately-owned corporate media in the USA, but they do. And… the uni education for my PhD has been largely free (I do pay some trivial fees).

What’s different about Australia that makes it work? Beats me. This could be just my perception, but I get the feeling that there’s a sense of the ‘public good’ as an active concept. It comes out in terms like ‘mateship’ and such. Even though many Americans are quite charitable, I haven’t seen this concept of ‘the public good’ as part of the national discourse since Reagan. It’s more ‘devotion to self’ and ‘what’s in it for me’.

Australia ain’t utopia, but if I were living in America, and I wanted to complain about taxes, I wouldn’t complain about the amount I paid. I’d be complaining about how little I was getting back.

No it’s not, that’s what gas taxes and property taxes go towards.

That means that social security and medicare are still being taxed.

Sure, but through progressive rather than regressive tax. The restructuring of funding sources thus allows the consumer to make a conscious decision as to where their hard-earned money goes. But I’m of the opinion that social security and medicare should be eliminated as well. We have become a lazy welfare state. But that’s another discussion for another time.

Even if magically this happens, it is still entirely an extremely regresive tax.

I disagree. You get to choose how (or if) you spend your money, thus determining when you will end up paying such a tax. However, the point of this post was not to argue for the FairTax—I merely offered it as a possible solution upon Narrator’s request—but instead to illustrate the similar circumstances in which we live today.

I am tempted to concede the point to you that the Lamanites didn’t offer any services or protection and thus the situation differs, however, we are not explicitly told that. For all we know, there was some sort of exchange of services or protection. Verse 21 says it was a treaty that they signed, perhaps indicating that in addition to the allocation of land there were other services promised. Who knows?

It may very well be fiscally irresponsible and not sustainable. But to claim that we are in ” the exact same situation today” is abusrd. 1. we are paying less in taxes and 2. those taxes are paying for services which we received and or will receive (sure, plus interest that doesn’t need to be there)
These taxes are not simply being taken by oppressive rulers who give nothing in return. The lamanites did not offer protection, social services, etc. or even payment on the debt for those things.

Most of the fair tax proponents don’t advocate removing social security or medicare taxes. The wikipedia article you linked to says as much, and that the taxes replaced are all federal: personal income taxes, payroll taxes, corporate taxes, capital gains taxes, self-employment taxes, gift taxes and inheritance taxes.
That means that social security and medicare are still being taxed.

Additionally there is dispute about what tax rate would be needed to keep the same income level we currently have. But even if 23% were the number, it is impossible for it to actually lower the price of goods and services by the 20-25% you are claiming. If all the corporate taxes add up to 25% of the price of an item AND they pass on all the savings to consumers that come from lower taxes then you still have to make up for all of the personal income tax that isn’t being collected. The only way you can remove all the inclusive taxes on items AND all the personal income tax and replace it with a clearly defined sales tax all while keeping the same income is to make the new tax add up to all the old taxes.

Even if magically this happens, it is still entirely an extremely regresive tax.

“100% of what is collected [through federal income taxes] is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Debt … all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services taxpayers expect from government.”
—Grace Commission, a result of Pres. Reagan’s Private Sector Survey, a “directive to identify and suggest remedies for waste and abuse in the Federal Government”

Connor, where are you getting these numbers? Even the nut-jobbiest websites I’ve seen are claiming no more than 25%, and the more even-handed are saying something like 19%. Not that that’s not a lot — it is — but no one’s saying 100%.

Are you making up stuff, or are you getting it from someone really off the charts?

This is not entirely true. 100% of your income tax goes to pay off the national debt to the “Federal” Reserve, since Uncle Sam keeps coming up with the need to have money created out of thin air, plummeting our economy further into debt, increasing inflation at the same time due to an increase in circulated currency. Not one red cent of your income tax goes to, as you say, “roads, schools, busses, trains etc.”

The fair tax doesn’t replace social security, medicare, or state taxes.

It sure does reform them. The Social Security system would still operate in the same way it does today, except that its funds would come from the progressive sales tax, as opposed to the regressive payroll tax. All it would accomplish is facilitating the reformed Social Security system, in that Social Security/Medicare funds would no longer be taxed three times: the time at which payroll taxes are first withheld, the time that those withheld taxes are counted as taxable income tax purposes, and finally when one gets the desired benefits.

Additionally, by placing the tax solely on the sales of goods (new, not used), prices would drop an estimated 20-25%, so after the 23% tax you’d essentially be paying the same price you are now, not noticing any difference. The only difference is that you would have 25% more money to spend because of the elimination of the payroll taxes.