A "FAIR TAX" thread so U_D can "tear me to shreds..."

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Let me again, reiterate, repeat, highlight...,





The middle class is already paying the FairTax on every widget and they get the additional burden of an income tax on top of it...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

... and the honor of all those payroll taxes!





REAL Patriotism!

 

[Saint Peter]

Pay your taxes and live clean.

Is that so fucking much to ask?

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

We need to end the reign of terror known as the IRS.

The FairTax would be a friend of charity...

Americans love to give away money. In 2008, as the economy flailed and the government bailed, we still donated $300 billion to charity, or about $1,000 per person. That figure includes everything from the Bill Gates/Warren Buffett charitable colossus to a bus driver at church dropping a $5 bill in the collection plate.

One reason for the ongoing frenzy of giving is the fact that Americans do not have to pay federal income taxes on money they hand over to philanthropic organizations. But as budgets get ever tighter, state and federal governments have started scrounging for change in the sofa cushions. In March 2009, spitballing about ways to pay for his health care overhaul, President Barack Obama suggested reducing rich people’s tax deduction for charitable giving.

The response from the nation’s schools, churches, museums, soup kitchens, and thrift shops was swift and angry. A coalition of charities and other groups concerned with giving—including the Philanthropy Roundtable, an association of foundations and other charitable organizations—sent a strongly worded letter to Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) declaring that “with so many Americans relying on the charitable sector, now is simply not the time to jeopardize the charitable gifts that are so important to its strength.”

Obama defended his proposal, arguing that if a donation is “really a charitable contribution, I’m assuming [the tax rate] shouldn’t be a determining factor as to whether you’re giving that $100 to the homeless shelter down the street.” The president also pulled out one of his favorite lines, noting that the tax hike would affect “only 1 percent of the American people,” but then he revealed perhaps more than he intended: “I think it is a realistic way for us to raise some revenue from people who’ve benefited enormously over the last several years. And, you know, ultimately, if we’re going to tackle the serious problems that we’ve got, then, in some cases, those who are more fortunate are going to have to pay a little bit more.”

If you think that’s just ordinary political boilerplate, remember that Obama wasn’t talking about an income tax or a capital gains tax. He was talking about a tax on money going to charities. The people he wanted to hit with a bigger tax bill are already “paying a little bit more.” They just don’t happen to be sending their money via the White House and Congress.

The proposal died, but the attitude behind the remarks continues to hover over American philanthropy. Comprehensive tax legislation is expected in 2010, and the revised rules may include new requirements for organizations with tax-exempt status. The Internal Revenue Service has already been gaining greater oversight of nonprofits in recent years, both by collecting more information about the groups and by increasing application fees.

At the state level, activists are agitating for laws mandating more diversity on foundation boards and more government control over how and where private philan- thropic dollars are spent. Even when the bills don’t pass, they often scare charities into making accommodations. In California, for example, the Greenlining Institute persuaded the State Assembly to consider the Foundation Diversity and Transparency Act, which would have mandated disclosure about the number of ethnic, sexual, and other minorities on the boards of large foundations and their grant recipients—an explicit step toward mandating quotas. After intense negotiations, the bill was withdrawn, and the state’s 10 largest foundations not coincidentally agreed to spend $20 million through minority-led groups serving minority communities, $10 million on leadership training and technical assistance to minority-led organizations, and additional cash for ongoing research and analysis about the role of minority organizations in the Golden State.

Katherine Mangu-Ward
Reason.com

There is nowhere the politician won't go, no level to which he won't sink, no moral, no scruple, other than raw, naked power...
__________________
"It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
CS Lewis

 

[RobDownSouth]

The problem is that you don't have a sound argument.

"No tax jurisdiction has ever made a 30% (exclusive) sales tax work. "

He has a sound argument. Your attempt to dismiss it out of hand solely because it doesn't fit your preconceived notions is pathetic.

Research shows that every 1% increase in a tax rate spurs greater interest in tax avoidance. An unprecedented 30% sales tax like the UnFairTax would spur massive interest in attempts to game the system.

Never underestimate the power of a motivated American people. Innovation is the bulwark of a capitalist society.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Fairtax gives you gas!

There are four component parts to a gallon of gasoline:

1. The actual crude oil (69%)
2. Federal and state excise taxes (13%)
3. Refining cost and profit (7%)
4. Distribution and marketing (12%)

(total slightly greater than 100% due to rounding)

The above breakdown comes directly from the United States Department of Energy and are current as of 2008, the latest year available. The link to document these numbers is HERE

Now then, "Fair Tax" or no "Fair Tax", the worldwide commodity price of crude oil will not change. "Please Mr. OPEC, we've just implemented a 'Fair Tax', would you please reduce your price 23%?" simply will not work. Put another way, implementing the UnFairTax will NOT impact the price of an import. It simply won't. There are NO imbedded/hidden taxes on imports. Under the UnFairTax, your cost of materials for every $100 of purchases just rose 30% to $130 (remember, ALL imports are taxed).

As far as Excise taxes go, your beloved HR25 keeps federal excise taxes intact (see Section 302, Section D) so they will remain unchanged.

Therefore, 82% (69% + 13%) of the current cost of a gallon of gas remains the same whether or not the UnFairTax is implemented.

Now, let's assume a "best case scenario" (i.e. one that presents the UnFairTax in the best possible light) and assume that the cost basis of the remaining 18% is indeed reduced by the "23% embedded taxes" touted by AJ. With me so far?

Under the UnFairTax, you will now pay $1.25 for every $1.00 you currently pay on gasoline.

Here's the math:

• 82% of the cost remains unchanged: $1.00 * .82 = $0.82
• The remaining 18% of the cost is lowered 23% due to "embedded taxes" ($1.00 * .18) * (1 - .23) = 14 cents
• Add those two sums together: $0.82 + $0.14 = $0.96
• Now calculate the UnFairTax sales tax of 30% (“23% tax inclusive”): $0.96 * 1.30 = $1.25

Feel free to check my math!

If gas was normally $2/gallon, it'd be $2.50 under UnFairTax.
If gas was normally $3/gallon, it'd be $3.75 under UnFairTax.
If gas was normally $4/gallon, it'd be $5.00 under UnFairTax.

 

[firespin]

Firespin...

Do you believe that lowering taxes stimulates an economy and increases revenues or do you believe it lowers revenues?

Taxing something tends to discourage people from doing it, so lowering taxes encourages it. That doesn't necessarily increase tax revenues though, it depends how much you lower the taxes and how much the behavior increases. Of course, if you reduce rates to zero, revenue goes to zero.

And, of course, the graph you posted had NO political axe to grind. Get real. Neither would turn out to be a true reflection of reality. Any form of taxation will, per force, have unintended consequences associated with it. The public will adjust to any new system in a manner that would be unanticipated by any group trying to model the behavior. Consequently I look at neither of those graphs as anything more than a politically weighted indication of possible results and in that context I would posit that the Boston Univ. study has far less political bias than the presidents commision.

That being said, I have already acknowledged that the middle class will pay proportionately more in taxes even if that is manifested by reduced savings in taxes. This is NOT as a result of any intentional, or for that matter unintentional, bias in the legislation. It is an artifact of the purchasing habits of the middle class. They just happen to spend more on non-essential shit as a proportion of disposable income than anyother group. Couple that with the fact that it is also the middle class that is primarily engaged in the underground economy, an economy that would be recovered for tax purposes under the legislation. These artifacts are artifacts of choice.

Both charts reflect a reduced percentage of taxes recovered from "the rich." A fact that certainly feeds the fervor of those so eaten with envy that they chose to engage in class warfare. What is lost in the discussion is a fact I brought out earlier and that fact is that most of those 'rich' are in reality businesses that will no longer be subject to taxation. This occurs as a specific acknowledgement that businesses do NOT pay taxes and never have paid taxes. They merely act as intermediate tax collectors for the government. And the understanding of that reality is essential in understanding why both graphs show a shift in the tax burden. The Fair tax columns, and I really don't care which graph you use, merely takes the hidden taxes and redistributes same into the proper quintiles. Consequently the Fair tax columns probably reflects the reality of both systems whereas the current system column merely perpetuates the myth that businesses pay taxes.

Ishmael

Concur 100% ont he unintended consequences thing. I don't think anybody knows what would really happen to income, prices or sales in any number of key dimensions...it's like trying to do global warming models assuming we get rid of the oceans.

The class warfare thing is tiresome, but to your point, why it is that "businesses don't pay taxes", even as sole proprietors and partnerships, which is the bulk of the range we are talking about here, but individuals do? Clearly both get the money to pay taxes from their income, and that comes from somebody else. Increase a lawyer's tax rate, and his prices need to go up to maintain the same income. I think both groups are similar for the purposes of this discussion.

At the end of the day, I think the strongest argument that can be made for the fair tax is that it is (ideally) a big, revenue-neutral shell game. We will replace the 23% hidden taxes (on average) in "everything' with a new, 23% inclusive tax on the gross transaction cost. And we will achieve the "gross pay = net pay" promise of the fair tax by reducing everybody's gross pay to the level of their net pay, because without that, nobody can lower their prices based on these taxes "going away". So, ideally, things cost about the same, and people's takehome pay is still about what it is now. Hardly a compelling story, except for those that know they will come out ahead due to the ratio of their current income and expenses...they'd love to find some poor loser to take the other half of the revenue-neutral wager.

The problems will arise because of the unintended consequences, as you noted. Pricing disparities, income shortfalls, evasions, complexity creep over time just to name a few.

 

[Ishmael]

Taxing something tends to discourage people from doing it, so lowering taxes encourages it. That doesn't necessarily increase tax revenues though, it depends how much you lower the taxes and how much the behavior increases. Of course, if you reduce rates to zero, revenue goes to zero.



Concur 100% ont he unintended consequences thing. I don't think anybody knows what would really happen to income, prices or sales in any number of key dimensions...it's like trying to do global warming models assuming we get rid of the oceans.

The class warfare thing is tiresome, but to your point, why it is that "businesses don't pay taxes", even as sole proprietors and partnerships, which is the bulk of the range we are talking about here, but individuals do? Clearly both get the money to pay taxes from their income, and that comes from somebody else. Increase a lawyer's tax rate, and his prices need to go up to maintain the same income. I think both groups are similar for the purposes of this discussion.

At the end of the day, I think the strongest argument that can be made for the fair tax is that it is (ideally) a big, revenue-neutral shell game. We will replace the 23% hidden taxes (on average) in "everything' with a new, 23% inclusive tax on the gross transaction cost. And we will achieve the "gross pay = net pay" promise of the fair tax by reducing everybody's gross pay to the level of their net pay, because without that, nobody can lower their prices based on these taxes "going away". So, ideally, things cost about the same, and people's takehome pay is still about what it is now. Hardly a compelling story, except for those that know they will come out ahead due to the ratio of their current income and expenses...they'd love to find some poor loser to take the other half of the revenue-neutral wager.

The problems will arise because of the unintended consequences, as you noted. Pricing disparities, income shortfalls, evasions, complexity creep over time just to name a few.

What the Fair Tax does is to put in the hands of the tax payer the means to determine how much tax they want to pay. If you live a frugal life style you will be able to save a great deal of money (assuming middle class). And that too is a good thing. In reality it stops the 'shell game' you refer to and more clearly reflects where the tax burden is falling, has always fallen. It reduces the tax code to an understandable 20 pages as opposed to the 400,000+ page indecypherable labyrinth of special favors we now have.

The reason it's so despised by the progressives/liberals and politicians is that it removes from their hands the ability to engage in 'behavior modification' based on the tax code. The purpose of the tax code, any tax code, is to raise monies to fund the necessary functions of government, not to be used as a form of extortion to try to get the taxpayer to conform to what some group of politicians feel is 'good behavior' based on the latest finding published in Psychology Today.

Most importantly is the fact that if it were to be inacted the taxpayers of the nation would be free to focus on the real problem, government spending.

Ishmael

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

One of several questions that was not answered...

What happens to all of the retirees who have been contributing to after tax retirement plans and social security. Say you earn $1000 at age 64, pay taxes on it, and then stick the remaining $800 in the bank. The next year you turn 65. Under current law, that retirement money is yours free and clear because you've already paid taxes on it. But if a sales tax is suddenly legislated into existence, that $800 isn't worth $800. It's only worth about $600. Surprise! All that money you've saved for retirement is suddenly worth a whole lot less than you thought it was. Better not plan on taking any of those Caribbean cruises you've been dreaming about. Every dollar ever saved after taxes in your life time is suddenly taxed again. Unless you don't spend it.

Granted, this is a "transitional" issue, but one that will last 30-40 years.... There is nothing in the proposed "FairTax" to deal with this issue at all.

Since I'm not too busy this morning here's another issue..

Since sales taxes are regressive--taking more percentage-wise from the incomes of the poor and middle class than the rich--some provision is needed to prevent a vast increase in taxation on the nonwealthy. The FairTax does this by sending monthly checks to every household based on income.

Aside from the incredible complexity and intrusiveness of tracking every American's monthly income--and creating a de facto national welfare program--the FairTax does not include the cost of this rebate in the tax rate. FairTax is designed only to match current revenues and does not cover any increased spending that it may require. Since the rebate will cost at least $600 billion the first year, either federal discretionary spending would have to be cut by 60% or the rate would have to be five percentage points higher than advertised.

Not to mention the fact that Federal government spending will increase at the same percentage as the FairTax. The federal government, including the DoD (Have you looked at our Defense budget lately?), is not exempt from this consumption tax. For the government to afford to purchase the same goods and services, it would have to raise spending by the amount of the tax it pays to itself. The FairTax rate, however, is not high enough to finance the higher spending it imposes. Therefore the proposal only works if federal purchases are cut by 30%, close to $300 billion--the increased cost imposed by the FairTax.

 

[Byron In Exile]

What the Fair Tax does is to put in the hands of the tax payer the means to determine how much tax they want to pay. If you live a frugal life style you will be able to save a great deal of money (assuming middle class). And that too is a good thing. In reality it stops the 'shell game' you refer to and more clearly reflects where the tax burden is falling, has always fallen. It reduces the tax code to an understandable 20 pages as opposed to the 400,000+ page indecypherable labyrinth of special favors we now have.

The reason it's so despised by the progressives/liberals and politicians is that it removes from their hands the ability to engage in 'behavior modification' based on the tax code. The purpose of the tax code, any tax code, is to raise monies to fund the necessary functions of government, not to be used as a form of extortion to try to get the taxpayer to conform to what some group of politicians feel is 'good behavior' based on the latest finding published in Psychology Today.

Most importantly is the fact that if it were to be inacted the taxpayers of the nation would be free to focus on the real problem, government spending.

Seriously, people aren't getting this, yet?

Congresscritters are cells in a giant parasite.

This can't end well.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Seriously, people aren't getting this, yet?

Congresscritters are cells in a giant parasite.

This can't end well.

As I posited earlier, to both the far religious right and the far Marxist left (and manages to even permeate into the "middle" with the fingers-in-the-wind crowd), there's a nobility to forcing the rich to pay their fair share of alms...


__________________
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it."
Frederic Bastiat

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

One of several questions that was not answered...

What happens to all of the retirees who have been contributing to after tax retirement plans and social security. Say you earn $1000 at age 64, pay taxes on it, and then stick the remaining $800 in the bank. The next year you turn 65. Under current law, that retirement money is yours free and clear because you've already paid taxes on it. But if a sales tax is suddenly legislated into existence, that $800 isn't worth $800. It's only worth about $600. Surprise! All that money you've saved for retirement is suddenly worth a whole lot less than you thought it was. Better not plan on taking any of those Caribbean cruises you've been dreaming about. Every dollar ever saved after taxes in your life time is suddenly taxed again. Unless you don't spend it.

Granted, this is a "transitional" issue, but one that will last 30-40 years.... There is nothing in the proposed "FairTax" to deal with this issue at all.

Since I'm not too busy this morning here's another issue..

Since sales taxes are regressive--taking more percentage-wise from the incomes of the poor and middle class than the rich--some provision is needed to prevent a vast increase in taxation on the nonwealthy. The FairTax does this by sending monthly checks to every household based on income.

Aside from the incredible complexity and intrusiveness of tracking every American's monthly income--and creating a de facto national welfare program--the FairTax does not include the cost of this rebate in the tax rate. FairTax is designed only to match current revenues and does not cover any increased spending that it may require. Since the rebate will cost at least $600 billion the first year, either federal discretionary spending would have to be cut by 60% or the rate would have to be five percentage points higher than advertised.

Not to mention the fact that Federal government spending will increase at the same percentage as the FairTax. The federal government, including the DoD (Have you looked at our Defense budget lately?), is not exempt from this consumption tax. For the government to afford to purchase the same goods and services, it would have to raise spending by the amount of the tax it pays to itself. The FairTax rate, however, is not high enough to finance the higher spending it imposes. Therefore the proposal only works if federal purchases are cut by 30%, close to $300 billion--the increased cost imposed by the FairTax.

They paid the "FairTax" the whole time they were "saving." Without the FairtTax, they will continue to pay those higher costs imbedded as your "inclusive" tax even after they begin spending it. They just won't be hit with additional taxes and will be getting a prebate check and have probably made all their big-ticket taxable purchases, so the chances are, they can live tax-free. Sometimes I wonder if you really understand the bill or just hate me.

From the book, "Under the FairTax plan, the earnings on your investment accounts and social security benefits will no longer be taxed [how FAIR is the current system? A_J] - so that means you'll have more money in your pockets...

Yes, it does. As far as tracking them, think IRS... We already DO track them AND we audit them under Napoleonic Law... All single men have to register for the draft. 48 million checks a month to for social security. We already HAVE the mechanisms and expertise in place to perform the task.

Additionally, the FairTax returns financial privacy to you for the only tracking it requires is that which much more Constitutional, like the census, where is your household, how many people reside there. Will there be fraud? Yes. There's fraud now, only more systemic because everyone has more incentive to fudge on their income tax.

As for government spending increases that going to happen no matter what the tax code unless we begin self-educating ourselves because government sure as hell isn't going to do it. Now, Obama wants to stimulate England's economy with a One Billion Dollar Embassy in London...

The Hubris.

At any rate, that argument doesn't have as much to do with the fair tax as it does the state of government education, civics, and understanding of the COnstitution and the limit role the Federal Government is supposed to play in our lives.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

I don't think you understand the boon to business and how it will increase revenue.

Right now business is handicapped by government which changes the business business cycle to the tax cycle. When decisions are based on tax implications instead of business implications, you "retard? business and thus you retard government revenues.

Even more in evidence is the depth of this recession due to the fears from business as to what is coming down the pike in additional costs and regulations for a Congress gone Spring-Vacation wild with Social Spending and this has significantly reduced government revenue.

 

[Byron In Exile]

As I posited earlier, to both the far religious right and the far Marxist left (and manages to even permeate into the "middle" with the fingers-in-the-wind crowd), there's a nobility to forcing the rich to pay their fair share of alms...

This absolutist sort of thinking makes my underwear itch.

Let's put philosophy aside for just a minute, and be practical.

Obviously, a Fair Tax would put H&R Block out of business, but surely their employees could find jobs pushing paper elsewhere.

But, honestly, has anyone ever done anything so amazing that they're worth one billion dollars?

Let alone fifty, or one hundred billion dollars?

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

This absolutist sort of thinking makes my underwear itch.

Let's put philosophy aside for just a minute, and be practical.

Obviously, a Fair Tax would put H&R Block out of business, but surely their employees could find jobs pushing paper elsewhere.

But, honestly, has anyone ever done anything so amazing that they're worth one billion dollars?

Let alone fifty, or one hundred billion dollars?

Most of their employees are seasonal and currently being replaced by software anyway...



With more money in your pocket, there might be more of a market for financial services.

 

[Saint Peter]

Make no changes until my light rail is operational.

Thanks!

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Make no changes until my light rail is operational.

Thanks!

Do you still think the light saber we sent you is real?

 

[Saint Peter]

Do you still think the light saber we sent you is real?

Define real. It chopped the neighbor's cat in half.

 

[firespin]

With more money in your pocket, there might be more of a market for financial services.

When you think about it, this is a great topic for this sort of advocacy...you know, the sort based on things like not understanding how the tax rate is computed, or not understanding that, as Ish notes, most people will be paying more taxes, assuming they keep buying the same things. (And, of course, under any plan, not buying things helps people keep their money, so that's not a unique advantage.)

The reason why it's a great topic is, at the end of the day, there is zero chance that this plan will be enacted. (A republican majority couldn't even privatize part of social security.) The whole "repeal the income tax amendment" thing is one sure way you can tell, but there are others as well, e.g. the implied protectionist effect that occurs with anything imported as finished goods...cars, computers, TVs...most of the "hidden taxes" are captured outside the US; the prices paid by importers won't go down, but the taxes they have to pay on each sale are 30% of the old sell price. Ouch.

So...it's a great advocacy topic, up there with putting us back on the gold standard, or doing away with the federal reserve, or doing away with the electoral college. Fun to think about.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Define real. It chopped the neighbor's cat in half.

*chuckle*

That must have been one of the glass prototypes...



Now they're made of an environmentally safe nerf-foam and come with helmet, goggles, knee and elbow pads, mouthpiece, legal waiver...,

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

When you think about it, this is a great topic for this sort of advocacy...you know, the sort based on things like not understanding how the tax rate is computed, or not understanding that, as Ish notes, most people will be paying more taxes, assuming they keep buying the same things. (And, of course, under any plan, not buying things helps people keep their money, so that's not a unique advantage.)

The reason why it's a great topic is, at the end of the day, there is zero chance that this plan will be enacted. (A republican majority couldn't even privatize part of social security.) The whole "repeal the income tax amendment" thing is one sure way you can tell, but there are others as well, e.g. the implied protectionist effect that occurs with anything imported as finished goods...cars, computers, TVs...most of the "hidden taxes" are captured outside the US; the prices paid by importers won't go down, but the taxes they have to pay on each sale are 30% of the old sell price. Ouch.

So...it's a great advocacy topic, up there with putting us back on the gold standard, or doing away with the federal reserve, or doing away with the electoral college. Fun to think about.

It's also a great topic when it comes to understanding who defends the status quo and identifies with class envy policies, be it from the right or the left.

 

[Byron In Exile]

Define real. It chopped the neighbor's cat in half.

Real or not, at least it's practical.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Real or not, at least it's practical.

The Light Rail will be very practical to both its riders!

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

They paid the "FairTax" the whole time they were "saving." Without the FairtTax, they will continue to pay those higher costs imbedded as your "inclusive" tax even after they begin spending it. They just won't be hit with additional taxes and will be getting a prebate check and have probably made all their big-ticket taxable purchases, so the chances are, they can live tax-free. Sometimes I wonder if you really understand the bill or just hate me.

From the book, "Under the FairTax plan, the earnings on your investment accounts and social security benefits will no longer be taxed [how FAIR is the current system? A_J] - so that means you'll have more money in your pockets...

Yes, it does. As far as tracking them, think IRS... We already DO track them AND we audit them under Napoleonic Law... All single men have to register for the draft. 48 million checks a month to for social security. We already HAVE the mechanisms and expertise in place to perform the task.

Additionally, the FairTax returns financial privacy to you for the only tracking it requires is that which much more Constitutional, like the census, where is your household, how many people reside there. Will there be fraud? Yes. There's fraud now, only more systemic because everyone has more incentive to fudge on their income tax.

As for government spending increases that going to happen no matter what the tax code unless we begin self-educating ourselves because government sure as hell isn't going to do it. Now, Obama wants to stimulate England's economy with a One Billion Dollar Embassy in London...

The Hubris.

At any rate, that argument doesn't have as much to do with the fair tax as it does the state of government education, civics, and understanding of the COnstitution and the limit role the Federal Government is supposed to play in our lives.

*laugh*

Yes, you can live tax free, as long as you never buy another *new* item and shop at a second hand store or buy exclusively used items.. As long as you never buy any of the things that are not currently subjected to sales tax.. As long as you never ever want to live anywhere but below your means.. You're right, you will live tax-free...

 

[Saint Peter]

The Light Rail will be very practical to both its riders!

Riders?

We just want photos of it in the tourism ads.