Even if you give credits to the poor (which means we still track all income) how would you ever take a 'fair' amount of tax from the rich? The current tax on someone making $400K from a job is ~37% with federal/state/local. So you're reducing their tax burden more than half (if they spend 100% of what they make). In fact, they spend much less than they save, so if they buy $50K of stuff a year, their taxes are nearly eliminated ($8K in taxes versus $400K income). You can't provide the lower income people enough relief without adding to the debt (or raising the sales tax to something absurd, in which case low income people would need weekly credits or something).
This idea is insane.
Finland has a VAT of 24%. We also get taxed for income, and there are lots of other hefty taxes too. Strangely enough, this doesn't seem to be enough for our little country to live within its means though. Go figure.
> Even if you give credits to the poor (which means we still track all income) how would you ever take a 'fair' amount of tax from the rich?
What's a "fair tax" on "the rich"? Do you deserve to get raped harder just because you've made a few hundred thousand dollars for yourself?
Yes.
Oh, and it's not about "affording" anything. If it were, it would be a voluntary transaction, much like buying a Retina MacBook Pro if you can afford one.
Yes, yes, I get that a graduated income tax might be necessary to pay for the things our society has decided to pay for, but calling the current situation fair is Orwellian.
"With the prebate program in effect, those earning less than $15,000 per year would see their share of the federal tax burden drop from -0.7 percent to -6.3 percent. Of course, if the poorest Americans are paying less under the FairTax plan, then someone else pays more. As it turns out, according to the Treasury Department, “someone else” is everybody earning between $15,000 and $200,000 per year." [1]
No thanks.
[1] http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.html