Home > Jay Bookman > Archives > 2008 > May > 31 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USMy last shot at the FairTax
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
You don’t have to have a degree in economics to see the failings of the proposed FairTax, although economists say there are plenty. You don’t need to be a lawyer or accountant to see where it would all go wrong, although lawyers and accountants who have studied the idea say it’s unworkable.
All you need is the good sense your momma and daddy gave you, along with a knowledge of human nature.
The core of the idea is to replace the federal income tax, estate tax, capital gains and payroll tax with a 30 percent sales tax on all goods and services. And to offset the impact of a high sales tax on low-income Americans, every household in the country would receive a significant check every month from the federal government. This year, for example, a family of four would get a monthly rebate of $537, regardless of their income.
Human nature being what it is, tens of millions of households would quickly become addicted to that check. Each month, they would depend on the generosity of their dear Uncle Sam to help them make their car or house payment or buy groceries for their kids. And that ought to drive conservatives nuts. Their biggest fear is a populace that becomes dependent on government, and the FairTax would do more to encourage dependence on government than any program liberals have ever concocted.
(For the rest of the column, click here)
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By zeke
May 31, 2008 8:46 AM | Link to this
What a crock of donkey dung, Jay! The democrat socialist from FDR, the great socialist, to LBJ, Carter and Clinton have done their utmost to turn us into a government nanny society to suit their liberal socialist agenda. Every program of government give away entitlements, the give away is the tax money confiscated from those who actually work, risk and contribute to our society,and, give it to those you claim are less fortunate. What a line of crap! The fair tax does more to eliminate dependency on government by allowing us the taxpayer to have the ultimate decision and power to decide how much tax I will pay! This plan also taxes the so called wealthy you are constantly forging class warfare on. It will also insure that people like the Kennedys, Rockefellers, Hiltons and others who have vast wealth but no income pay a fair share that they do not now, and, still let the government support those who do not contribute to our society. You liberals should embrace it, it is your agenda! Oh! Sorry! I forgot that in return you would lose your power to force your views upon those of us who actually have a brain and can see the absolute stupidity of your socialist liberal agenda!
By Burbridge
May 31, 2008 9:01 AM | Link to this
Zeke
You did an excellent job of not addressing Jay’s point.
By Taxpayer
May 31, 2008 9:24 AM | Link to this
Jay, You are right on target with your assessment of the FairTax(TM). You will never sway those that have faith in the written word though. Some people will always be blinded by their faith in others and that’s just the way it is. One way to approach a fairer tax is to examine each and every expenditure by our government and make sure that it is needed and that it is priced competitively. If we minimize government, then we will necessarily minimize taxes. Once that is done, then we can have meaningful discussions about the distribution of taxes.
By GodHatesTrash
May 31, 2008 9:45 AM | Link to this
The so-called Fair Tax is moronic. The biggest clue that it is nothing but hot air are the blowhards that support it. This proposed tax system turns everyone into not only a tax payer, but a tax collector as well, which will drive the whole economy underground.
Of course, this idea is popular in Atlanta, where many people are already working “off the grid” - paying illegals out of pocket for their labor, and many individuals are making large sums working as pimps, prostitutes, drugdealers, moonshiners, gun sellers and pawnbrokers, and cash businesses have always under-reported income as a way of life. But, if it wasn’t for the infusion of northern and California federal tax dollars, the red state economies would be even more third-world than ever.
The larger question is - why do so many idiots in the red states support it?
Answer: The red states have always been overpopulated by idiots.
By Political Foreskin
May 31, 2008 10:00 AM | Link to this
The historical argument against the Fair Tax is that it would raise prices for everything and stall the economy. With prices already soaring, adding another 20% may tip the balance into a depression. The government check may not change the all important perception that we’re in a depression in time to save us. The mechanics of getting the check to people in time, and having it be the correct amount to offset the higher prices are insurmountably complicated, and no accountant could figure it out.
That’s what I read somewhere a few years back, but I dont know the soundness of that argument. (Unlike zeke, taxpayer and trash who seem to have mastered the subject to where they could have their own radio shows)
Obama 08: He’s doesn’t have all the answers to every subject under the sun, but he’s got good people to advise him, and he’s not lying scum, and he’s kinda cool. Remember, he danced with Ellen on TV.
By Taxpayer
May 31, 2008 10:12 AM | Link to this
It would not be fair of me to tax other’s perceptions of their own intellect by touting, over the airwaves no less, something of such little value as the FairTax(TM) unless there were something of value in it for me.
By sunshine and thunder
May 31, 2008 10:21 AM | Link to this
Oh, so now the act of returning a taxpayer’s money to him is government dependency. The logic of that one is like trying to jump a canyon in two leaps.
By George Washington
May 31, 2008 10:22 AM | Link to this
What the fair tax crowd leaves out is the fact that tens of millions of americans have already paid federal income tax on their life’s savings and the fair tax would again tax that money when it is spent, while other people would be able to spend their current earnings without the burden of federal income taxes….the fair tax would cheat the savers in america and reward the pay check to pay check crowd, and the then current high earners.
By Class Warfare
May 31, 2008 10:30 AM | Link to this
I am all for it as long as every stock purchase, every commodities purchase, every financial instrument purchase is taxed at the same rate. Of course, that has the same chance of happening as Bush does of being remembered as anything other than a natural disaster.
By Taxpayer
May 31, 2008 11:34 AM | Link to this
It is truly sad that so many people think that they are going to get something back that they currently are not getting by changing to the FairTax(TM). Maybe they will — maybe it just won’t be what they were expecting. I am surprised that the state colleges have not spotted the opportunity to make a mint off of offering at least two courses on the FairTax(TM). Talk about easy money — one school could hire Linder and Boortz to teach and they could require students to pay, say $500, for the class as well as purchase the latest issue of the book. Each student would be required to listen to Boortz’s radio program as well as complete a research paper on the FairTax(TM), with a minimum of two references. Linder could even offer interviews, for a nominal fee, to those students so inclined to go straight to the horse’s mouth, so to speak. Who says preying off an ignorant populace has to be confined to the artful politician. Let’s go sell it on the mountain.
By Taxpayer
May 31, 2008 11:48 AM | Link to this
I thought I had made some similar comments about the FairTax(TM) on Jay’s previous blog on the topic:
By Taxpayer
May 22, 2008 11:34 AM | Link to this
A lot of people talk about how the FairTax(TM) will make the taxes that we pay more transparent than they currently are. Once you switch over to collecting a sales tax on everything and there is no tax return to file each year by the individual, I think the result will be just the opposite. The sales taxes will become the “new” embedded tax and people will not have any paper trail that they maintain for future reference. How many people save every sales receipt and inspect them to see how much tax they paid? How many will save all their receipts and tally the numbers so they’ll be able to see first-hand how much they pay in taxes. This assumption, like so many other assumptions, just don’t sound very realistic — it’s not how most people function. The FairTax(TM) could change ten times a year and most people would not even be able to tell you when it changed or by what amount. They’ll just be looking for their monthly prebate and hoping it arrives in time to avoid another bounced check charge or something else. The bottom line — the FairTax(TM) is nothing more than a distraction that just wastes time and effort that could be better spent on other things like future sources of energy and food and affordable housing.
By CJKatl
May 31, 2008 12:02 PM | Link to this
Jay - this is probably the only issue in which I agree with you. It boils down to common sense…
If it costs X-dollars to run the government, then the citizenry as a whole needs to fork over X-dollars. Shuffling around who pays what does not change how much needs to be brought in.
If we go to a sales tax, and we know that people who earn millions don’t spend it all, then where is the money they previously paid going to come from? Proponents claim lower income people will not have to pay much, if any, of the tax. Clearly, the burden would shift to the middle and upper-middle classes to pay a higher share. People who live paycheck to paycheck, who maybe eke out 10% savings per check, will be taxed on 90% of their income. Compare that to 0% for lower income taxpayers and a small fraction for those who rake in much more than they could every possibly spend.
If as a society, we believe this is morally correct, then the fair tax should be adoptied,. If, however, as a society, we believe that those who have been fortunate and lucky enough to do very well should pay a higher share of the common-good tax burden, then the income tax makes sense. I believe the latter. As did the wealthy people of years past, most of whom make a lot less, as compared to the average worker, in their day than many corporate executives are legally stripping from their companies today.
For those who believe the argument that savings gets pumped back into our economy, join the 21st Century. The savings gets pumped out of the country. Most of the factories being built in this country are foreign owned. Our savings is going toward building a new China, a new India, and a new Central Europe. Under the “Fair Tax” plan, if any of it were invested in building within the US, it would become taxed. If you were looking to invest in a business, you’d choose to do it in India or Central Europe, where the market is growing and you would not be taxed.
The “Fair Tax” is purely lights and mirrors. Don’t think so? Just ask one of its proponents to simply answer a question. You’ll get personally insulted. You’ll get gibberish and ciruclar reasoning. But you’ll never get a simple answer. Even with my college degree in Economics and Government Policy, my law degree, and my graduate work in tax policy, I’ve never quite understood an answer given by one of these “Fair Tax” followers.
By Stand up sit in.
May 31, 2008 12:08 PM | Link to this
The historical argument against the Fair Tax is that it would raise prices for everything and stall the economy. With prices already soaring, adding another 20% may tip the balance into a depression. The government check may not change the all important perception that we’re in a depression in time to save us. The mechanics of getting the check to people in time, and having it be the correct amount to offset the higher prices are insurmountably complicated, and no accountant could figure it out.
That’s what I read somewhere a few years back, but I dont know the soundness of that argument. (Unlike zeke, taxpayer and trash who seem to have mastered the subject to where they could have their own radio shows)
Obama 08: He’s doesn’t have all the answers to every subject under the sun, but he’s got good people to advise him, and he’s not lying scum, and he’s kinda cool. Remember, he danced with Ellen on TV.
By Taxpayer
May 31, 2008 12:27 PM | Link to this
After reading the comments by “Stand up sit in”, I feel a bout of deja vu coming on.
By Sam Jam
May 31, 2008 12:37 PM | Link to this
Gee. My degree in common sense tells me this is a government run amok.
Why you sheep want to maintain the status quo of out-of-control federal spending without limits is mind bending. Whatever the solution is, something has to change. What are you - a bunch of IRS boot-lickers? Guilty until you prove yourself innocent.
Your precious do-gooder, world-saver politicians have saddled us with 60 trillion dollars of unfunded liabilities and have their noses in every one’s business and hands in every one’s pockets.
Speaking of massive debt, have fun while your heroes in Washington ensure your dollar is ever more worthless since that’s the only way they can hope to make a dent in paying it off. Is your income keeping up with the regular dilution of the money supply and resulting inflation?
“Inflation” as measured by CPI is 4.5%. Do the sheep think that hedonic adjusted BS is true? Sure. Big Brother said so. Like Iraq and the Gulf of Tonkin and BJ’s
You’re being scammed every day. Keep on cheerleading my fellow patriots. HAHAHAHA.
By Zod
May 31, 2008 1:04 PM | Link to this
These tens of millions of people Jay must be refering to are all the people living at or below the poverty level- e.g. the poor. I happen to be one of them, Jay. I don’t earn enough to pay income taxes but I still have to pay payroll taxes and I have to pay that hidden 22% on everything I buy.
I could get a second job but then I’d end up paying income taxes and that’d be a total waist of my time, especially since I don’t approve of this Congress or this President and I don’t like the idea of paying them any more than I am now. This is the only way I can protest. I can’t afford to save or invest any money but, if I could, I still wouldn’t know how to report my interest and capital gains. What forms would I have to fill out, what deductions would I qualify for? Consult a professional? Please- just another waist of my time and labor. Congress changes the tax code faster than the IRS can keep up so, even the IRS forms are wrong.
Under the Fair tax, I wouldn’t mind taking a second job because I would get to keep all of my money and not fund the corruption in Washington. That would allow me to save and invest without worring about complicating my tax return. The more I earn, the less significant the prebate would be to me and the less dependant/addicted I would be to it so, it would give me plenty of incentives to leave my appartment and contribute something. But, if that’s a problem for everyone, FINE! I’ll just sit on my poor fat a* for the rest of my life.
By George Washington
May 31, 2008 1:29 PM | Link to this
This is a little off topic, but what ah hates about the clintons and their ilk is their rightous indignation when one states the truth about them…ah just luved the priests parady of the hag, but the talking heads on the boob tube spoke with such outrage in would think the prist had p** on the holy communion waffer then fed it to hillary…. As a matter of fact that is just what the fair tax means to me….
By Karl Marx
May 31, 2008 1:52 PM | Link to this
When new ideas are brought forth they all boil down to one thing; power. Liberal rags like the AJC, along with it’s devilish pundits, love to wield their iconic scepters with impunity ( much like the vultures from the never ending story movie) all the while raving like dogged lunatics. God forbid someone tilt thy apple cart.
Most federal workers are less useful than the paper in their waste baskets, as a former GSA subcontractor I have caught whole departments asleep in the Federal building downtown. The IRS and its staff are close cousins, and the one thing they do well is propagate like mold on bread, all the while defending each other like fire ants. Only a true moron, or those with a self serving interest, would be able to discern that this plan, while not perfect by any stretch of the imagination is not a 100% better solution than what we have now. I would like to see it taken one step further and have the endowment accounts of higher learning institutions included into the tax system and all Federal scholarships and grants ceased immediately. You do not have the inviolable right to use my tax money, to send your idiot to college. It is not in the Constitution I promise......Nor do you have the right to fund, thus employ the idiot minds teaching at such institutions from my tax monies......No you really do not......By 234
May 31, 2008 2:15 PM | Link to this
Only 50% of workers pay taxes now.
The top 25% of workers/taxpayers pay over 85% of income taxes.
Time everybody started contributing to the country. Might raise the level of responsibility and and pride of ownership.
By Chris
May 31, 2008 3:20 PM | Link to this
What about state income tax? What about city and county property tax?. Who decides who gets what part of the 30% between local state and national? And by the way, all those folk you claim don’t pay income tax do in fact pay sales tax now. Just more of a mess in the making.
By Redneck Pete
May 31, 2008 3:34 PM | Link to this
The convenience store robbers, who wore thongs on their faces while they pilfered, should be called the waistbanditos.
Maybe not.
By William L. Fell
May 31, 2008 4:26 PM | Link to this
“Only those who chose their parents and planned their coming life well, while in the womb, deserve credit for success; otherwise it’s all luck.” So why give the rich more tax breaks with the Fair Tax? They don’t deserve what they have, never mind more and more and more.
By J. Thompson
May 31, 2008 5:01 PM | Link to this
It’s truly sad that the FairTax has no chance, and it has no chance because of a basic ignorance of economics 101, and a bunch of folks that think that ‘common sense’ is good enough for them to understand complex systems and issues. Common sense is just that, common. We need to implement systems that require uncommon sense.
By Dilbert
May 31, 2008 5:07 PM | Link to this
Yes, that is the untold lie exposed! We of whom are members of the “lucky sperm club,” sit back in idle amazement now that the Gordian knot has been untied. It was Luck all the time….And here I thought it was the bread made by our servants, who are constantly grinding up the bones from the peasant children……That’s the real secret to success and a life of opulence………….
By Redneck Pete
May 31, 2008 5:17 PM | Link to this
Karl Marx sure does stink. The Fair Tax will never happen because it neither fair nor a tax.
Dateline NBC had a show about wives who hire hit men to kill their hubbies. The face of evil is very ordinary. There were some hotties, but they had ordinary minds. It’s astonishing that someone would be dumb enough to ask around for a hit man and expect a real one to actually show up and take a lousy thou to kill. Those stupid women offered hit men one thousand dollars.
Which brings up the question, how would you find a hit man? Is it that common? I mean, can you find a guy to fiddy-cent your spouse and tupac his or her sorry azz for a pittance?
Is that reality?
By Taxpayer
May 31, 2008 8:19 PM | Link to this
I just hope that all those out there that voted for Linder are happy with their selection. They deserve him. How many years has he held office and what has he really delivered to his constituency? If the FairTax(TM) is his big “accomplishment”, then he is one more pathetic representative of the people. Why doesn’t Linder get on here and explain himself. I’d like to hear that one.
By Dave
May 31, 2008 9:40 PM | Link to this
George Washington, you need a lesson on Economics 101. The life-time savers you mentioned will be taxed the second they take out their money in today’s tax system when they buy their goods with the 22% imbedded taxes already in them. The FairTax REPLACES those taxes with a sales tax, doesn’t add them - replaces them. Those life-time savers get taxed either way, and with the FairTax, they get the pre-bate on their minimum monthly purchases, which they don’t get with today’s tax system. They are actually BETTER OFF with the FairTax. Oh yeah, and they only pay taxes under the FairTax if they buy NEW goods, because items are only taxed ONCE when new under the FairTax.
By Bill
June 1, 2008 12:53 AM | Link to this
Bookman, you’ve got it wrong. You know you’ve got it wrong. You know better. Shame on you.
You seem obsessed with repeating yourself on this issue and you always get it wrong. What are you trying to prove?
You could repeat these lies (and at this point you know they’re lies) until your fingers fall off but people know better by now and you’re looking more and more like an obsessed fool who just can’t let go and can’t admit you’ve got it wrong.
It’s rare for me to speak like this but you need to just let it go, my friend. It’s not a matter of your having won or lost the erstwhile one-sided debate, it’s just a matter of moving on and letting it go.
By Duane
June 1, 2008 5:56 AM | Link to this
Mr. Bookman;
Hopefully your word will be better than you knowledge of economics or your surety of your parentage and we will no longer be subjected to your inaccurate, unfounded dribble about the FairTax. You have attempted to make a career of antagonizing the FairTax supporters who do not see through your sham of a commentary.
I suggest you do some more research on the international effect of our current tax system and the actions already taken by the other nations who compete in the global market. However, please keep what you learn to yourself as I would rather go through life blind than rely on your words.
By Taxpayer
June 1, 2008 8:44 AM | Link to this
Mr. Bookman,
Great job highlighting some of the fallacies with the FairTax(TM). We need more people like you out there presenting the other side on issues. By the way, why haven’t Linder or Boortz come to you to provide a rebuttal? I don’t think they can.
By Charles
June 1, 2008 10:15 AM | Link to this
It’s almost unbelievable the argument Bookman compares the Fair Tax “prebate” check to other government social programs. He fails to point out you keep your WHOLE paycheck (for those who do actually work) and that we ALL have to pay taxes on goods when we shop. But then again Liberals like Bookman don’t want to reduce the size of government. They would prefer we live in a Socialist society where government takes care of all our needs and personal responsibility is considered a selfish act.
Why do I imagine that the only tune Bookman has on his Ipod is “Back In The U.S.S.R.”?
By Michael
June 1, 2008 12:01 PM | Link to this
You’re right about one thing. As long as the Democrats are in power there won’t be any chance for the FairTax.
By Taxpayer
June 1, 2008 3:53 PM | Link to this
Mr. Bookman,
You are absolutely right about the chances of this FairTax(TM) ever becoming a reality — absolute zero. When the Republicans were in complete control, they threw this thing aside like a hot potato. Now, most of the Republicans won’t even join in a conversation about the FairTax(TM) because they know that it is a waste of time and that it can only hurt them in the long run. Even the White House has thrown it on the dung heap.
By vanno
June 1, 2008 6:01 PM | Link to this
Keep Michigan on your radar folks. They may institute a FairTax-like plan for their state. The first state to get this plan wins. It’s a no-brainer.
By Me
June 1, 2008 6:51 PM | Link to this
Once heard someone ask Neal Boortz the question (paraphrased), “I make x amount of dollars now and my employer pays a certain amount of taxes. Under the Fair Tax who gets the money my employer pays, him or me?” Boortz’s answer was something like “well you might have to change jobs one time to get the effect of the Fair Tax.” Saw this on some CSpan show. I agree that the current tax system is a mess but don’t see that this would be any better. They claim the IRS will go away but how big will the agency be to handle the Pre-bate checks. They claim the sales tax will be 22% but many claim it will be more like 30%. And what about Daddy Warbucks who can make the super big ticket purchases. What’s to keep him from purchasing off shore and paying zero? Seems to me the main benefit of the Fair Tax if book sales. The Federal Government already spends way more money than it takes end. What makes anybody think going to the Fair Tax or any other system will change that? And by the way I’m a conservative/populist not a liberal.
By Redneck
June 1, 2008 6:55 PM | Link to this
Taxpayer, in an earlier post you asked what Linder had really delivered to his constituency? Just exactly would you expect him to deliver to his constituency, food, fuel for their vehicle, medical services, housing, clothing, etc.?
If you are looking for someone to take care of your personal needs you should get a job and take care of yourself. Your individual needs are not the responsiblity of a congress person!!!
By Me
June 1, 2008 6:55 PM | Link to this
that should say “The Federal Gov’t already spends way more than it take IN” I need to proof read more.
By Taxpayer
June 1, 2008 8:13 PM | Link to this
Redneck,
Your ignorance is showing. Is that deliberate.
By Phil
June 1, 2008 11:11 PM | Link to this
Conspicuously absent from Mr. Bookman’s tirade is any mention of how he would address the numerous economic challenges that we face which are exacerbated by our current highly dysfunctional tax system. Included are 1. looming insolvency of Social and Medicare, 2. the largest trade deficit in human history, 3. a declining and now negative individual savings rate in this country, 4. the relentless increase in complexity and higher compliance costs of the current system
Just to name a few.
Interestingly enough, the AJC has run many articles on these and other economic problems which the FairTax would address. However, the only solution I have heard is for voters to urge their representatives to “do something”, or to establish benchmarks. Not a single specific proposal has even been mentioned to address any of these challenges (including the FairTax).
Of course, I doubt if Mr. Bookman even comprehends how the FairTax would address these economic challenges. He is too busy insulting the intelligence of FairTax supporters to take the time to understand the economic impact of it.
By Taxpayer
June 1, 2008 11:41 PM | Link to this
Phil,
Please, tell me more. I would like to hear about the tirades and insults and especially about your approaches to solving the four issues you laid out. This sounds quite interesting — not nearly as boring as some of the posts.
By Clinton Smith
June 2, 2008 12:08 AM | Link to this
So Jay, what, praytell, is the federal tax refund? Last time I checked it was this several-hundred dollar sized check that many American households receive once a year from Uncle Sam. I suppose this too is another form of welfare upon which the huddled masses have become hopelessly dependent. What I don’t understand about people who make this criticism is their inability to understand the concept of the REBATE. As in money paid is returned!
I also enjoyed how you conveniently left out the part about how ALL goods and services currently have about 22% of embedded taxes in them that would disappear under the FairTax.
By the way, what is your idea to reform the tax system? Or do you think it is just fine? What with the 12 trillion dollars in offshore money which has fled it? Or the countless corporations which have moved overseas to avoid it? Or the manipulation and control over the citizenry which it holds? Or the discouragement of savings and investment and hard-work which it pushes? Or the billions of dollars of fraud which go undetected? Or the hundreds of billions of dollars in compliance costs?
Here’s an idea Jay. Why don’t you get together about $20 million in venture capital funds and commission a decades long theoretical and empirical study to see what would be the best method of revenue collection for the federal government. What would your values for the ideal system be? Transparency? Efficiency? Low-overhead cost? Difficulty of evasion? Ease of compliance? Progressiveness? Encouraging of economic growth? Oh wait, I’ve already begun describing the inception and history of the FairTax…
By John
June 2, 2008 5:32 AM | Link to this
Jay, your knowledge of the Fair Tax and economics would fit up the butt of a gnat and rattle around like a bb in a battleship.
Do yourself a favor and find a new line of work and stop embarrassing yourself and this hideous COMMUNIST newspaper.
By DMac
June 2, 2008 6:28 AM | Link to this
Great work, Mr. Bookman. Devotees from The Church of the Emaculate Tax (FairTax) want to burn you like a witch. Unfortunately, like their counterparts from the Salem witch trials, they use twisted logic and bogus evidence to refute your criticisms.
I liked your analysis of why, under Republican majorities the FairTax still can’t get off the ground.
Bravo!
By Phil
June 2, 2008 7:10 AM | Link to this
Taxpayer: So you want a tutorial on the FairTax on this blog? Sorry, I don’t have time for a thorough explanation of the economic benefits of the FairTax, and that list was intended to be illustrative, rather than comprehensive.
However, I will provide a brief intro. The essential problem with SS and Medicare is demographic in nature. There will be proportionately fewer people joining the labor force over the next couple of decades than there are retirees starting to draw benefits. Therefore, the ratio of payees into the system vs those drawing funds out will shift adversely, primarily because of the “baby boom” generation. If we stick with a payroll based revenue stream, the only options are HUGE benefit reductions or very large increases in payroll taxes, or some combination thereof. The only way out of that box is to replace payroll taxes with a broader based tax on the entire economy. The only proposal I am aware of which does that is the FairTax. If we succeed in doubling the US economy during the first 15 years after passing the FairTax (which some have suggested as a goal with tax reform as a cornerstone), then we double the revenue base for collecting those taxes. If we stick with a payroll based system, there is no way to double the base in 15 years.
Of course, the explanation of how the FairTax would impact the savings rate is fairly simple and straightforward. If we eliminate the punitive treatment of savings and investment which are part and parcel of the current tax system, then we would increase savings and investment. That fact is widely recognized in the economic community. Of course, any consumption tax would offer this benefit; the FairTax just happens to be the most politically viable.
BTW, you didn’t respond to my basic issue, which is why does the AJC not ever discuss approaches to the economic challenges that we face - other than to implore its readers to pressure their elected representatives to “do something”. It’s like they think that legislators have a magic wand and they can painlessly effect economic change without any trade-offs and without facing fierce opposition from special interests. The ONLY way that legislators will act on any complex public policy issue is if a consensus develops on a solution and the political pressure becomes irresistable. Thinking that, absent that political pressure, legislators will address these is simply naive.
By Phil
June 2, 2008 7:22 AM | Link to this
“I liked your analysis of why, under Republican majorities the FairTax still can’t get off the ground.”
Here’s another interpretation. The political ruling class inside the beltway sees the FairTax for what it is - a HUGE shift of power from the federal government back to the people. Those elected representatives who trade in auctioning off special interest provisions do NOT want to jeopardize that power.
Here’s a quote for you: “Few lobbyists proffer an explicit quid pro quo to elected officials. They don’t have to. Their influence comes simply from having more access to those officials than the average voter, having better information than the average voter, and having more staying power when it comes to promoting an obscure provision in the tax code that means billions for their clients and that nobody else cares about.”
Care to hazard a guess who wrote those words?
By Taxpayer
June 2, 2008 7:55 AM | Link to this
Phil,
I stated previously:
By Taxpayer
June 1, 2008 11:41 PM | Link to this
Phil,
Please, tell me more. I would like to hear about the tirades and insults and especially about your approaches to solving the four issues you laid out. This sounds quite interesting — not nearly as boring as some of the posts.
Please show me where I asked for a tutorial on the FairTax(TM). Please start with your claim of “tirades and insults”, per my request, and let’s move forward from there. OK.
By hillbilly ragger
June 2, 2008 7:57 AM | Link to this
You FairTax cultists are funny.
Your beat-up cars and pickemup trucks bearing the “NO AH ARE ESS!!!1!” stickers proclaiming your love and allegiance to the scam-meisters Boortz and Linder are even funnier.
Some day, someone (maybe Jay) will make some big bucks on a book that highlights how badly you rubes have been scammed. Until now, we just have the columns, and they’ll do nicely. Thanks, Jay!
By Taxpayer
June 2, 2008 8:20 AM | Link to this
I wonder how many people know how much they paid in sales taxes over the years. I don’t. The best I could do is pull out my itemized purchases data (except for cash purchases) from Quicken and then estimate the sales taxes from that. I can however pull out my tax returns and determine exactly what I paid in income taxes, taxes on dividends and capital gains, etc., for both my state and federal returns. I suppose if I lived in a state where sales taxes are deductible, I may even have documentation on sales taxes that I paid each year. If we changed to a system such as the FairTax(TM), I could save all of my sales receipts and tally the numbers so I would know exactly how much I was paying in taxes. But, that effort would be contrary to one of the claimed benefits of the FairTax(TM). We would eliminate the need to keep track of taxes and who owes them and eliminate the IRS and businesses would no longer need to keep track of any taxes paid. Now, exactly how does this help us to see how the government is using our money or to change how the government is using our money.
By Vincent
June 2, 2008 8:40 AM | Link to this
Jay - If you have all of the answers, why are you so chicken to debate Neal Boortz on the subject? Is it because you know that he would explain how it would work? Thats what you libs are afraid of, isn’t it - individual responsibity.
By Taxpayer
June 2, 2008 8:40 AM | Link to this
Once our elected officials get to the point where they can honestly say that all government expenditures in existence have been thoroughly scrutinized and confirmed to be both reasonable and necessary, then we can talk about a fair tax. Otherwise, talk about the FairTax(TM) is nothing more than another scam — something to divert one’s attention away from the valid issues. We cannot even get the elected ones to get rid of the obvious pork. How could any reasonable person trust them to do anything else right if they cannot handle this one “simple” task first. The arguments about implementing this FairTax(TM) in order to hold the government accountable makes absolutely no sense. We hold government accountable by electing people that are willing to make the hard choices such as eliminating waste rather than creating more waste or re-naming the current waste or, even worse, re-redistributing the current waste. Implementing a system such as this FairTax(TM) does absolutely nothing to address even the “simple” issue of “pork”. It does nothing to eliminate the wasteful legislation such as the farm bill. It has no bearing whatsoever on our war spending. It would have made no difference whatsoever in the cost of energy or healthcare. It would have done nothing to reduce the size of government (replacing the IRS function with an equivalent tax collection function is not a reduction in government). It would have done nothing to ensure against tax fraud (no, the drug dealers still will not be charging a tax on illegal drug sales). All of the statements to the contrary are just that — mere statements. They are repeatedly offered up as though there were some scientific basis to support them when, in fact, they are no more valid or better supported than any statement given here.
On a different topic, has anyone followed the issue with the land application of sludge and the scientists at UGA and EPA that supported it. Those PHDs and others out there that utilize fabricated data need to be a little more thorough in their thought process. The devil will ultimately collect his dues once you sell him your soul. They really need to think ahead to the day when they have to pay up.
I say, Post that data to support all those claims made by the proponents of the FairTax(TM). Let others scrutinize that data and prove its worth. Don’t fall prey to those that would try and deceive you such as in the case of the sludge. Read about it and then let’s talk.
By gttim
June 2, 2008 9:10 AM | Link to this
The ignorance of the FairTax crew is truly astounding. I think it is best summed up by Zod, however. He makes below the poverty level but wants to advise us in taxes and high finance! Brilliant!
And the only thing better than seeing the crappy cars and pick-up trucks with FairTax stickers is seeing the same crappy cars and pick-up trucks with “W04” stickers. The GOP run government really seems to have been working for you!
By Phil
June 2, 2008 9:14 AM | Link to this
“It would have made no difference whatsoever in the cost of energy or healthcare.”
Incorrect. The current dysfunctional tax system has a LOT to do with the rapid escalation in the cost of health care. The fact that you do not recognize that connection does not mean it does not exist.
“It would have done nothing to reduce the size of government (replacing the IRS function with an equivalent tax collection function is not a reduction in government).”
Incorrect again. The FairTax would not require “an equivalent tax collection function”. The FairTax reduces the number of points of collection/enforcement by roughly 90% and the complexity of the system (if you use the number of pages of the two systems as a reasonable approximation of complexity) by more than 98%. That is a HUGE savings in administration. Although the really big savings would be in the private sector where they would run into the hundreds of billions of $$$ annually, the savings to the government would not be inconsequential.
By Judi
June 2, 2008 9:24 AM | Link to this
It’s obvious that Bookman - and several of those making comments here - don’t have a clue about the FairTax. There are two books explaining this exciting new proposal written in language that anyone can understand. I would suggest that you read them - both.
With the current tax system our country is headed for economic disaster in the not-to-distant future. Our kids and grandkids won’t have a chance. I think we’re ready for another Boston Tea Party.
By hillbilly ragger
June 2, 2008 9:33 AM | Link to this
Phil @ 9:14, you forgot to mention the really big payoff, when the magic beans get planted, and all the giant beanstalks reach into the big dude’s castle with all the gold!
By Taxpayer
June 2, 2008 9:44 AM | Link to this
Phil,
Why do you choose to ignore my request for you to expound upon your claims of tirades and insults. If you want to have a discussion on a topic, then you must prove yourself worthy by backing up your claims.
By hillbilly ragger
June 2, 2008 9:44 AM | Link to this
Vince @ 8:40 AM, who you calling “chicken”?
1) as has been discussed here already, Jay’s offered to debate that liar and blowhard Boortz on his Boortz’s AM yak-fest. Boortz doesn’t want that—he wants to have a “town hall” circus where he can pack in his idiot fans, who’ll shout Jay down.
Boortz is the coward. Not Bookman.
2) As hasn’t been discussed but needs to: the real chicken is not just Boortz but the lying wad-o’-crap Representative (yarite) John Linder, who refused to debate his Democratic challenger in 2006 and probably will refuse again this year. Both Dems who ran against Linder called him out on his FairTax crock; Alan Burns’ website is still live, and it’s a GREAT takedown
Doug Heckman’s ain’t too shabby either.
By Taxpayer
June 2, 2008 9:49 AM | Link to this
Phil, I’m waiting. Please back up those words you so freely toss about. Furthermore, don’t make false claims about my statements. You cannot support any of your statements against me, can you. Where is your proof to back up your statements. Come on now. Don’t be shy.
By hillbilly ragger
June 2, 2008 10:03 AM | Link to this
Judi, Linder’s opponent has read both of those screeds and is willing to debate him on the merits.
Why is John Linder afraid of Doug Heckman? Could it be that once Linder had to face his opponent like a man, Linder would be revealed as not only a charlatan on this tax issue, but a chickenhawk who’ll rubber-stamp an endless war?
By Jim
June 2, 2008 10:13 AM | Link to this
Wish Jay would explore all facets(pros and cons) of the Fairtax unstead of just hitting on a few? I do not fully understand it but see where other bloggers bring up all these other points that I am missing information on.
By Phil
June 2, 2008 10:19 AM | Link to this
“Why do you choose to ignore my request for you to expound upon your claims of tirades and insults.”
Because the answer is obvious to any literate reader. Bookman’s musings on the FairTax drip with arrogance and condescension. He has written in the past that he opposes it because, under a voluntary system, he might make choices which would increase his personal tax burden over and above what he pays under the current coercive system. He doesn’t understand why everyone doesn’t think that way: “what’s in it for me?” If I can save $25 a year in taxes, I’m for it; if not, then I oppose it. Who cares if the trade deficit hits $1 trillion/year, as it appears to be headed toward? Who cares if the USD continues its slide? Anyone who is looking at the bigger picture and supporting a tax system because of what it would do for the US economy is ignorant, a rube, right?
“If you want to have a discussion on a topic, then you must prove yourself worthy by backing up your claims.”
Prove myself worthy to who? Who designated you as the arbiter of what can be posted on this blog? I will post whatever I like within the limits of the posting rules of the site, thank you very much.
By Jobprovidingrichguy
June 2, 2008 10:47 AM | Link to this
Jay, You failed to do your homework. Your comment regarding lobbyists seeking ‘exemptions’ for certain clients is simply wrong. The referenced ‘clients’ would not pay income taxes under the FT System and therefore exemptions would not be necessary! Your another example of a government educated liberal trying to strike fear in the hearts of the ‘great unwashed’ while simultaneously trying to stick it to those who make your very existence possible.
By Jay Bookman
June 2, 2008 10:56 AM | Link to this
Wrong, rich guy. If I’m Ford Motor Co., I’m lobbying for an exemption so that buyers of a new car don’t have to pay that 30 percent FairTax. If I succeed, I have just lowered the cost of my product by 30 percent, and will thus sell a lot more of them.
By VANNO
June 2, 2008 11:18 AM | Link to this
Speaking of Ford motors, tell anyone you know in Michigan to place their name on the initiative for the state fairtax! they need over 300,000 names to get the issue up for a vote later this year.
By vanno
June 2, 2008 11:56 AM | Link to this
Aren’t car (and anything else) buyers already paying a 30% (exclusive) corporate tax, but without all their income or a prebate? The fairtax provides the prebate, no income tax, no corporate tax, and the same tax we’re already paying.
By tired taxpayer
June 2, 2008 2:00 PM | Link to this
When will you reporters get of your left wing agenda and take time to get your information correct!!!! Take time to read up on something before you let you stupidity show through.
By Rick
June 2, 2008 2:49 PM | Link to this
It might help if you actually READ the FairTax Book or even the FairTax: The Truth before you blasted something you OBVIOUSLY don’t know anything about. Those so-called businesses you refer to needing lobyists wouldn’t pay taxes anyway so they have no need for lobbyists. The AJC should not allow such lying, straight out falsehoods as this to be printed no matter what your opinion is.
By Taxpayer
June 2, 2008 2:52 PM | Link to this
Phil,
Your words: By Phil
June 1, 2008 11:11 PM | Link to this
Conspicuously absent from Mr. Bookman’s tirade is any mention of how he would address the numerous economic challenges that we face which are exacerbated by our current highly dysfunctional tax system. Included are 1. looming insolvency of Social and Medicare, 2. the largest trade deficit in human history, 3. a declining and now negative individual savings rate in this country, 4. the relentless increase in complexity and higher compliance costs of the current system
Just to name a few.
Interestingly enough, the AJC has run many articles on these and other economic problems which the FairTax would address. However, the only solution I have heard is for voters to urge their representatives to “do something”, or to establish benchmarks. Not a single specific proposal has even been mentioned to address any of these challenges (including the FairTax).
Of course, I doubt if Mr. Bookman even comprehends how the FairTax would address these economic challenges. He is too busy insulting the intelligence of FairTax supporters to take the time to understand the economic impact of it.
Again, Phil. What tirade and what insults. Copy and paste or provide a reference. I am just asking you for proof — nothing more. Why won’t you back up your words or take them back?
By Copyleft
June 2, 2008 2:58 PM | Link to this
It’s always funny to watch the UnfairTax cultists get their feathers ruffled. You could set your watch by their utterly predictable cries of outrage:
“Obviously, you haven’t read the Holy Book! Disagreement is impossible once the Holy Book fills your soul and opens your mind!”
“You know NOTHING about economics. Not like me, I know EVERYTHING about how economics works. Supply and demand. There, that’s all there is to it.”
“Oh, so you LOVE our current tax system, huh? I guess you work for the IRS!”
“I notice all the thoughtful comments (like ‘your an socialist commie idjit’) are coming from the FairTaxers, and the critics have only petty personal insults to offer. They suck, and are stupid!”
Funny stuff, to watch deranged cult members screeching and flapping their wings.
By Copyleft
June 2, 2008 3:09 PM | Link to this
The only counter-criticism that even APPROACHES validity is Taxpayer’s: “So what’s YOUR plan?”
Me? I’m not a professional economist. I’m just educated and intelligent enough to recognize the UnfairTax scam for what it is—a scam. A detailed tax policy proposal? I don’t have one.
But off the cuff, I’d offer these suggestions:
*Economic protectionism and tariffs to support internal corporations and protect them from race-to-the-bottom Third World sweatshop prices.
*Restoration of corporate tax rates to where they were in the conservatives’ cherished Golden Age: the 1950s.
*Restore the pre-Reagan tax-bracket structures.
*Maintain and expand the taxes on estates and capital gains to pay for the switch from income to payroll taxation.
And yes, I know that everyone in teh UnfairTax cult will be appalled at every one of those suggestions, and the phrase “socialist-commie-pinko-go back to CubaRussia you scum” will be bandied about… just as it is every time someone suggests looking out for working-class Americans instead of the wealthy elite.
Check your wallet, folks; if it’s not bulging with hundred-dollar bills, you’re sleeping with the enemy by supporting this FairTax nonsense.
By Taxpayer
June 2, 2008 3:47 PM | Link to this
Phil,
I don’t care what you post here as long as it is not an attack on what I post. Once you attack my posts, then I expect you to put up or shut up, you silly person. Now please quit acting so childishly. If you want to have a discussion regarding my posts, then prove yourself worthy and back up your words. Start by showing me the “tirade” and insults from Mr. Bookman. Show me that you are capable of backing up your words with something other than insults. Go ahead and ask me to show you proof of your insults. Your post, Phil:
By Phil
June 2, 2008 9:14 AM | Link to this
“It would have made no difference whatsoever in the cost of energy or healthcare.”
Incorrect. The current dysfunctional tax system has a LOT to do with the rapid escalation in the cost of health care. The fact that you do not recognize that connection does not mean it does not exist.
“It would have done nothing to reduce the size of government (replacing the IRS function with an equivalent tax collection function is not a reduction in government).”
Incorrect again. The FairTax would not require “an equivalent tax collection function”. The FairTax reduces the number of points of collection/enforcement by roughly 90% and the complexity of the system (if you use the number of pages of the two systems as a reasonable approximation of complexity) by more than 98%. That is a HUGE savings in administration. Although the really big savings would be in the private sector where they would run into the hundreds of billions of $$$ annually, the savings to the government would not be inconsequential.
You claim that my statements are incorrect, Phil. Where is your proof. Back up your attacks with proof. All you have done is made baseless attacks.
By Phil
June 2, 2008 4:03 PM | Link to this
“I don’t care what you post here as long as it is not an attack on what I post.”
I did not attack you, nor your posts. I disagreed with what you posted and offered a contrary opinion. There is a big difference.
By A Non-Kool-Aid Drinker
June 2, 2008 4:20 PM | Link to this
Phil —
I realize this post will probably be futile, but if you go back and actually read the books by Boortz and Linder, especially the footnotes, then read them again, you will realize they are just blowing smoke. Neither of the books has a single citation as to how the magical 23% tax rate was derived.
Basically, the 23% rate was arrived at via a back-of-the-envelope calculation about 15 year ago and hasn’t been revised since, even though every independent economist who’s reviewed the FairTax has concluded that it would not and could not generate anywhere near enough revenue to come close to funding the goverment.
Nevertheless, the FairTax clearly has a very strong appeal to those who wish to believe in it. But, then again, so does Santa Clause.
By rockster
June 2, 2008 4:53 PM | Link to this
It is a good thing that this is your last time addressing the Fair tax. You may not be capable to understand it and I am not willing to take the time to teach you. Please concentrate on pink elephants and games w/o scores of course. Don’t forget American dancer
By Hillary Clinton
June 2, 2008 4:59 PM | Link to this
We’ve run the calculations over and over, and $23 out of $100 comes out to 23%, not 30%, every time. We understand why opponents to this plan would like to quote the higher exclusive tax rate for an inclusive tax. What we don’t understand is why they aren’t quite so fond of quoting our income tax the same way.
When people who have actually studied H.R 25—hear this argument, they just sigh and shake their heads. The truth is that the Fair Tax completely lifts the tax burden off the backs of the poor, as was noted by President Busch’s tax reform commission. Those who barely make enough money to cover the basic necessities for their families will not pay one penny in federal taxes under this plan. In fact, they will be getting a totally free ride on our two largest entitlement programs, Social Security and Medicare. How pray tell, can it then be said that their tax burden would be increased?By Phil
June 2, 2008 5:04 PM | Link to this
“Basically, the 23% rate was arrived at via a back-of-the-envelope calculation about 15 year ago and hasn’t been revised since”
That was hardly a “back of the envelope” calculation. The rate was calculated and verified by several respected economists at the time, including Dr. Dale Jorgenson of Harvard University.
…” even though every independent economist who’s reviewed the FairTax has concluded that it would not and could not generate anywhere near enough revenue to come close to funding the goverment.”
The only economists who have come up with substantially higher rates are those who have exposed their hidden agenda by changing the design of the FairTax and then scoring their own version of the proposal. For example, some have eliminated the rebate and used the state convention of exempting certain types of consumption. Since this is a much less efficient procedure than the rebate mechanism, the rate has to be increased to offset. Of course, that is exactly what these critics intend - drive the rate up to the point that the FairTax becomes politically untenable.
The rate has been validated within the past 24 months by several respected economists, including Arduin and Laffer, as well as Dr. Lawrence Kotlikoff of Boston University.
At least one of these studies has been published in a peer reviewed journal.
By Taxpayer
June 2, 2008 5:29 PM | Link to this
Phil,
You did not offer a difference in opinion. Your word was “incorrect”. That is an attack. However, I’ll accept your latest post as a correction of your earlier post because I’m such a nice guy. Of course, that’s just my opinion. After all, “nice” is such a relative word — unlike “incorrect”. Incorrect is so absolute — the opposite of correct. That just does not “sit well” with me. Do you understand, Phil?
By Taxpayer
June 2, 2008 5:33 PM | Link to this
I wonder how many people look at their gasoline receipt when they fill up and think to themselves “This tax is just outrageous, I’m calling my Congressman. I won’t stand for this. I demand a change.”, or something similar. I looked at my latest gasoline receipt and it did not even break down the Federal, State, and local taxes. Oh well, out of sight, out of mind.
By A Non-Kool-Aid Drinker
June 2, 2008 6:03 PM | Link to this
Phil —
I know you and know that you are an honorable guy. But I believe you might be stretching the truth a bit.
Dale Jorgenson never did a study “verifying” the 23% rate, and in fact opposes the FairTax and has stated publicly that it cannot work.
It is interesting that you dismiss the independent studies critical of the FairTax as having a “hidden agenda”. Yet the studies you claim support the FairTax, particularly the Beacon Hill/Kotlikoff study, were PAID FOR by the primary group pushing for the FairTax, assume an annual deficit of $500 billion, and do not take tax avoidance into consideration. So, basically, they were paid-for propaganda that do not stand up to close scrutiny.
Come on, Phil. At least be honest. You might not agree with the critics of the FairTax, but none of them (including Jay Bookman) has any financial dog in this hunt. They oppose the FairTax because they honestly believe it cannot work.
On the other hand, virtually everybody who publicly supports the FairTax — Boortz, Linder, Kotlikoff, BHI etc. — all have direct financial interests in promoting it (and avoiding any debate on the subject). Boortz and Linder make money off of book sales and radio. Kotlikoff and BHI are paid by AFFT. None of them can be considered “objective.”
You are one of the few exceptions. You engage in actual debate and don’t have any direct financial stake in promoting the FairTax. I just think you’re wrong.
By Phil
June 2, 2008 6:56 PM | Link to this
“Dale Jorgenson never did a study ‘verifying’ the 23% rate, and in fact opposes the FairTax and has stated publicly that it cannot work.”
Dr. Jorgenson’s study showed GDP growth in excess of 10% the first year after implementation. That is enormous. He has been asked if he now recants his economic analysis and he has answered negatively. He has his own version of tax reform which he promotes endlessly and it has gone nowhere.
If we wait until someone develops a tax reform proposal that is unanimously agreed to by the entire nation, the current system will lead us to a major economic crisis. The special interests love the fact that there is so much resistance to change.
“It is interesting that you dismiss the independent studies critical of the FairTax as having a ‘hidden agenda’. Yet the studies you claim support the FairTax, particularly the Beacon Hill/Kotlikoff study, were PAID FOR by the primary group pushing for the FairTax..”
I am sure that AFFT and all FairTax supporters would love to find an independent economist who would score the FairTax as it is written and provide an unbiased analysis. That isn’t reality. I have read most of the stuff that is out there critical of the FairTax and much of it addresses the way it has been marketed (which leaves quite a bit to be desired in some instances), rather than the merits of the proposal itself.
“Come on, Phil. At least be honest. You might not agree with the critics of the FairTax, but none of them (including Jay Bookman) has any financial dog in this hunt. They oppose the FairTax because they honestly believe it cannot work.”
We simply disagree on this, HK. I have found that many opponents, such as Mr. Bookman, try to figure out how much they will personally pay in taxes compared to the current system, and oppose it on that basis. Those with that mindset typically assume a worst case scenario without providing any allowance for a faster growing, more vibrant economy.
“On the other hand, virtually everybody who publicly supports the FairTax — Boortz, Linder, Kotlikoff, BHI etc. — all have direct financial interests in promoting it (and avoiding any debate on the subject). Boortz and Linder make money off of book sales and radio….”
You must mean the higher profile supporters; surely you don’t think the average rank and file supporter gets financially rewarded for their support. If Linder has done this for pecuniary reasons, he made a bad calculation. He has staked his political career on it and has developed a reputation as a maverick within the Republican party as a result. If he were not truely interested in making a difference with his elected post, it would have been far easier to go along/get along. He had no idea when this started that he would be able to co-author a book which would become a best-seller. In fact, his publisher and many others told him not to expect much in the way of sales. Tax policy in general is about as exciting to the general public as watching grass grow.
WSB’s consultants have told Boortz in the past that it was a mistake to try to change public opinion. Doing so was NOT seen as a way to enhance his career by those who know about these things.
“You are one of the few exceptions. You engage in actual debate and don’t have any direct financial stake in promoting the FairTax. I just think you’re wrong.”
I appreciate the compliment and I respectfully disagree. The FairTax isn’t perfect, but it is clearly far better than the current system and any of the alternatives that I am familiar with, especially any that have significant political traction. This country faces some huge economic challenges as we enter the 21st century and, unfortunately, most Americans are oblivious to them. I believe that global competitiveness should be one of the biggest public policy issues in this election year. And yet, you hardly hear a word about it. We simply cannot continue to ignore the problems in SS and Medicare, the national savings rate, the trade deficit, the rising complexity and higher compliance costs of the current system and all the other adverse economic trends which our tax system contribute to. The FairTax critics, with very few exceptions, don’t have an answer to any of those.
One of the posters above advocated protectionism. In an era when globalization is sweeping the planet and countries are becoming more and more closely linked economically, protectionism would be a disaster. Protecting our producers from global competition and inciting a trade war is the last thing that we should do.
My mind remains open. If anyone has a more comprehensive and effective way to approach a tax system which has run amuck and is ill suited for the 21st century environment and economic realities, I am like Ross Perot - I am all ears. However, for those who want to put their head in the sand and pretend that ignoring these problems is a better option, we just have to agree to disagree.
By Nancy Pelosi
June 2, 2008 6:59 PM | Link to this
Yes, believe it or not, we all have seen quite a few critiques of the Fair Tax based entirely on the idea that it’s some sort of a right-wing plot against America’s poor. Well, if you can’t find a factual or logical basis upon which to oppose the Fair Tax, we guess this will do. One question, though: Since when did removing the poor in our society from any responsibility for paying any federal taxes whatsoever—Including Social Security and Medicare taxes—become part of the right wing agenda?
The Fair Tax is about allowing business men and women do what they do best, grow and expand their businesses, without concerns over the tax implications of their actions. The Fair Tax is about making America the worlds largest business tax haven, and bringing American business jobs, and capital back home. The Fair Tax is about expanding job opportunities here at home. If these are right wing conservative values, then you have to ask: What’s wrong with that?By Phil
June 2, 2008 7:16 PM | Link to this
“Every time I fight for change, the forces of status quo attack.”
Who uttered these words?
By veronica
June 2, 2008 7:54 PM | Link to this
All this discussion is great except for the FACT that the FT has NO chance of passing Congress. It got nowhere when the GOP controlled everything - now the chances are much less - zero. Certainly, Linder understands this. However, he has made millions of dollars personally off the FT and his interests lie with himself. Shame on him!
By Me
June 2, 2008 8:48 PM | Link to this
An economist’s guess is liable to be as good as anybody else’s. Will Rogers
By danny
June 2, 2008 9:25 PM | Link to this
Jay, your brain must be up your a**. I don’t care if the fairtax is 40% as long as I don’t have to deal with April 15th.
Also you should read the proposed law before you write about it.
By Robert
June 2, 2008 10:35 PM | Link to this
There are plenty of economists and plenty of lawyers who have studied the fair tax and say it won’t work; there are also plenty of economists and lawyers who’ve studied the fair tax who say it will work. If you want to attack an idea, that’s fine, but where’s you’re evidence? Perhaps I am naive to believe that we’ll ever get the votes necessarry to pass the fair tax AND rempeal the 16th Amendment, but just as we abolished slavery and gave women the right to vote, I believe that one by one we CAN make the fair tax happen. However, Mr. Bookman, if you can get the fair tax idea into the head of one person who might not have heard about it yesterday, I say thank you, because I’ve never met anyone who became familiar with the fair tax who opposes it.
By TV Junkie
June 2, 2008 11:26 PM | Link to this
Personally, I would like to see WSB-TV dedicate an hour of local programming where J. Bookman debates Herman Cain on the merits/demerits of the Fair Tax. Maybe Bookman could learn something!
By Taxpayer
June 3, 2008 7:28 AM | Link to this
Robert,
We have obviously never met.
Also, I’d like to see Boortz and Linder come to Bookman and defend their product. They are the ones promoting this wasted effort and they should defend it. If I produced a program and claimed, for example, that it would solve all the issues regarding taxes, then I would be the one obligated to prove it — not everyone else. Further, that proof consists of more than simply making a statement. Anyone can make assumptions and claim that their assumptions are true. I could make a claim, for example, that the FairTax(TM) will reduce the tax burden by eliminating the IRS. That claim, as well as many others, has no basis in fact. If you collect taxes using even an honor system, then you require some means of collection, gathering, tallying, etc. Further, the prebate system itself would necessarily affect more individuals than the current system of dispensing tax overpayments. All those people qualified for a prebate have to be identified and entered into a dynamic database, money has to be collected, quantities collected must be confirmed to be sufficient on a monthly basis prior to making prebate payments or else arrangements must be made to borrow funds until revenues are sufficient to pay the prebates as well as the loan, etc. In summary, there is no way to engage every qualified citizen in a prebate scenario without first creating a system that is at least as large as the IRS.
By Copyleft
June 3, 2008 7:58 AM | Link to this
“Every time I fight for change, the forces of status quo attack.” Who uttered these words?
Every crackpot with a martyr complex and a bad idea to sell, from “intelligent design” to perpetual-motion machines.
By Dave
June 3, 2008 8:46 AM | Link to this
Taxpayer,
Why would Boortz or Linder waste one molecule of air on a loser like Bookman? The guy wouldn’t be working if he didn’t have an editorial job at a liberal newspaper (unless he wanted to teach at a liberal college). He can’t even figure out simple math, which is why he STILL insists on the 30% tax rate, even when it is flat-out not true.
I’ll admit that the “Eliminate the IRS” bit is hyperbole, but the FairTax will significantly reduce the cost, size, scope and more importantly, the threatening nature of the IRS over ordinary citizens. I’ll take that any day. Why? Because all they have to monitor with the FairTax is RETAIL busineses. If you are a business who manufactures something for consumption, you don’t have to worry about the tax, because the retail establishment is collecting it, not YOU. Despite your best efforts to describe it as such, the FairTax is no more an honor system than the income tax is today.
By Copyleft
June 3, 2008 10:15 AM | Link to this
“Anything that gets rid of the IRS,” eh?
You know, feudalism didn’t require an IRS. Should we give that a try?
C’mon, folks, we can do better than such black-or-white nonsense.
By Phil
June 3, 2008 10:47 AM | Link to this
“I’ll admit that the ‘Eliminate the IRS’ bit is hyperbole…”
I don’t think it is hyperbole at all. Just type in “IRS Abuse” into your search engine and scroll down through the links you come up with. Read some of the stories to give you an idea of what goes on. It is disgusting what we tolerate to sustain a system which is dysfunctional in so many ways.
The FairTax would require some enforcement mechanism, also, of course, but it would not be nearly as oppressive and abusive as the one that we have now.