Jay Bookman

By Copyleft

June 3, 2008 3:12 PM | Link to this

Ah, Mr. Bookman… it’s noble of you to keep trying, but you’ll never reach the UnfairTax cultists. Their high priest, Cardinal Boortz, has given them their marching orders, and no mere facts and logic will stand in their way.

Sane people (including economists) have moved on from the Boortz-Linder Scam Machine. Their few fanatical followers will never rest until they set up their own Branch Davidian compound somewhere in south Georgia. Just let ‘em be; they’re harmless (and brainless).

By hutch

June 3, 2008 3:29 PM | Link to this

People need to realize that with politicians, there will always be a way to give handouts to special interests. Do we really think they will adopt a system that will cut that off?

By Randy Robinson

June 3, 2008 3:58 PM | Link to this

You’re a left wing idiot, Bookman. But that’s nothing new, is it? Neither you nor your paper have been worth 50 cents for a long, long time.

By Lily Toad

June 3, 2008 4:03 PM | Link to this

Jay, the next argument you’ll hear from the True Believers is how all prices will miraculously come down because since corporations aren’t paying taxes, competition will drive down prices. As if they aren’t profit-making enterprises.

By bigpimpin

June 3, 2008 4:05 PM | Link to this

poor, poor jay. I think you need a self-confidence boost. have you tried testosterone supplements…they can probably help make you feel important.

By Taxpayer

June 3, 2008 4:10 PM | Link to this

Mr. Bookman,

Neal knows a good thing when he sees it and what he sees is a cash-cow that needs some more milking. His ratings translate into dollars in his pockets. It’s the American way. I know your assessment is correct and I suspect he may even know it but won’t say so because who wants to tune in to him to hear that. I might tune in to his show one day just to see how good a snake oil salesman he is. That reminds me. I was actually thinking about installing a radio in the John for those times when I have run out of reading material.

By Rick

June 3, 2008 4:38 PM | Link to this

There’s always going to be a nasayer somewhere but let’s ask this question. What’s better what we have now or some sort of change, I mean you Obama supporters have no idea what he is going to change but you are willing to vote for him so why not go for a change in the tax structure.

By A Non-Kool-Aid Drinker

June 3, 2008 5:39 PM | Link to this

Actually, Bookman has a very valid point. The FairTax is being sold as a tax on consumers, but it’s really tax on corporations that sell directly to the public. (The corporations collect the tax and remit it to the government.)

It’s the equivalent of a “gross receipts” tax in that such corporations must pay 23% (if you believe the Boortz’s of the world to do your math) of their gross sales in taxes.

As this is about 10 times what corporations currently pay in taxes (which are currently taxed only on their profits, not their gross sales), every corporation that sells to the public will be screaming to get exempted from the FairTax.

Either that or (a) they’ll stop doing business in the United States, or (b) they’ll stop selling directly to the public.

By Taxpayer

June 3, 2008 8:25 PM | Link to this

It’s really simple. You incorporate yourself (your business is living) so that everything you purchase is tax free since it will be purchased for the business. There is simply no need to purchase anything that isn’t for the business. The prebate is then just an added bonus from the money tree. You could even give the prebate back to the government — tax free. After all, that money is now used.

By taxmefairly

June 3, 2008 9:34 PM | Link to this

to A Non-Kool-Aid Drinker and Taxpayer. Neither of you have your facts correct. Was this from hearsay? Or was it from the time you did not take to actually learn what the FairTax does and does not do?

By Taxpayer

June 3, 2008 10:02 PM | Link to this

taxmefairly,

Specifically, what fact(s) are you claiming to be incorrect and what do you offer as proof? Please elaborate.

By Zod

June 4, 2008 12:54 AM | Link to this

There have always been a lot of presures and incentives on Congress to introduce special tax exemptions or penalties for one group or another, one thing or another under the income tax system. Every time they do, Congress just increases the tax rates of a few income tax brackets to compensate for it- no sweat. It’s not as if people can do anything about it. lol

Under the Fair tax, Congress would have to raise the tax rate every time they pass an exemption and, if people don’t like it, they won’t pay it. Congress will no longer have a blank check on the people’s money. We definitely wouldn’t see exemptions being handed out left and right as casually as they are now.

By Robert

June 4, 2008 2:27 AM | Link to this

Copyleft, as a dyed in the wool believer, I am offended that you would dare call my spiritual guru “Cardinal.” If you listen to Neal’s show backwards, you’d know that he’s “Pope Boortz the first!” To be fair, (at least until we have a People’s Republic) there will always be well-paid lobbyists feeding congressmen and senators coke and hookers in exchange for bad law favoring their clients. That said, eliminating the income tax and replacing it with a consumption based tax will benefit ALL Americans, albeit some not as well as others. Now, if you want to be super wealthy, show me that property on St. Simons that I can set up my Branch Davidian compound on. You’ll get full commission, even more if you don’t disclose to Glynn County the number of automatic weapons us Neal Koresh congregants carry, more still if you fail to disclose to GBI how much coke and how many hookers we’ll supply the county board of commissioners to keep quiet. Then again, as a brainless cultist, what do I know?

By RGDunn

June 4, 2008 4:22 AM | Link to this

There will no exemption on any product. There will be a pre-bate return on all spending below the poverty level for everyone. Those who are the richest will lose their offshore tax haven, those under the table will suddenly pay their fair share.

It is true that the corruption of government through the manipulation of taxes will be gone and there will only be lobbyists for doing what is right, not for greed.

The fair tax plan is the alternative to parity of wealth rather then the left’s plan of Marxism. The long term return on Marxism is the complete absorption of our paychecks. The Fair Tax will result in the complete gross pay of the paycheck going into the producer’s(employee) personal account.

Those who favor the further empowerment of Government over our lives will fight the Fair Tax as it is the revolution of liberty and freedom of the individual and the defeat of the tyranny of Centralized government.

By John

June 4, 2008 5:27 AM | Link to this

Again, moron, you keep leaving out the fact that the Fair Tax is an INCLUSIVE tax. The freakin’ tax will be INCLUDED in the cost of items sold. It won’t be added on top of the prices.

Christ! It is so impossible trying to deal with blubbering IDIOTS like Jay Bookman and his fellow travelers that even REFUSE to read the freakin’ book or at least read the bill proposed by Linder.

Jay Bookman is a liberal tool who is mainly against the Fair Tax because it goes against his belief in marxist theory in “from each according to their abilities to each according to their needs.”

That is the foundation for Bookman’s continued rants…without any decent research…against the Fair Tax.

Like I said the other day, Jay Bookman’s knowledge of the Fair Tax and economics would fit up the butt of a gnat and rattle around like a BB in a battleship.

Jay…once again…call the show and debate him on the air. Stop hiding behind this column and writing your cute little blogs. What a wuss you are.

John

By Taxpayer

June 4, 2008 6:53 AM | Link to this

Come on out of the woodwork Neal and John and defend this trash you so inappropriately label as FairTax(TM). Come on and defend it right here. Cowards. Why do you let others do your bidding? Get over here and blog it out. There are no radio show ratings to boost here.

By the way, I buy products from out of country and have it shipped to me for my personal use. How would I get these foreign companies to collect this FairTax(TM) and submit payments to the U.S. Department of No Longer Needed IRS? Will the U.S. create a new entity to answer all the other questions that will arise as well? Or, will there be a volunteer organization created to field all issues that arise? Will this organization have any enforcement authority? If illegal immigrants work and pay their FairTax(TM), aren’t they fully entitled to the prebate? Who will document all these illegal immigrants and make them legal, for tax and prebate purposes? I just have so many questions. If I could only read. Is there someone out there who can read me the answers to my questions from the BOOK. Would the purchase of the BOOK be taxable? After all, everyone will need the BOOK. It may even displace that other book in all the motel rooms. Shouldn’t it be exempt from taxes.

By Taxpayer

June 4, 2008 7:20 AM | Link to this

On a sort-of side note, now that well-paid lobbyists have been brought to the fore-front, these well-paid lobbyist’s activities are not limited to efforts to alter the tax code. Many of them are there presenting, for example, a party’s views on the need for certain legislation such as land application of sludge. It’s a shame that some party’s views are based on falsified data or incomplete data or both. It’s a shame that in many cases, there is no alternate viewpoint being presented to these persons whom we have elected to public office — these persons who, in many cases, do not even comprehend the implications of some of their legislation. I guess we just need more well-paid lobbyists with lots of cash available to pay all those expenses associated with getting those alternate viewpoints across as well.

By RDS

June 4, 2008 8:49 AM | Link to this

Notice Comrade Bookman will not debate Boortz face to face on the air or on a stage. notice how crybaby Taxpayer wants them to “Blog It Out” I will do you one better Comrade Taxpayer, They should do it live, on stage, face to face….but wait, Comrade Bookman won’t do that. Coward!

By hillbilly ragger

June 4, 2008 9:48 AM | Link to this

Taxpayer @ 6:53, don’t hold your breath waiting for Linder to participate in a debate on this. He was too chicken to debate his Democratic challenger in 2006, and he’ll undoubtedly follow suit this year, confident in the ignorance of his constituents.

Sad thing is, they’ll probably re-elect this fraud.

Sadder thing is, Linder promised to term-limit himself back when he was first elected to Congress, and has broken that promise twice already.

By Taxpayer

June 4, 2008 10:00 AM | Link to this

RDS is a communist plant, I guess. He needs to learn not to give himself away by dropping the “comrade” preface.

At least Mr. Bookman has taken the time to actually provide a reasoned and logical response to Boortz’s words. Boortz and Linder cannot refute the concerns that have been raised by Mr. Bookman.

By Ray

June 4, 2008 10:31 AM | Link to this

Mr. Bookman:

If Congress grants tax exemptions, then it is no longer the FairTax Bill.

By Duane

June 4, 2008 10:52 AM | Link to this

Well Mr. Bookman, I see that among your other talents you are a liar. Did you not recently publish a column claiming to be your last on the FairTax? Since we cannot trust you to keep your word I don’t understand why anyone would bother to respond to your drivel but I see that many have and they have refuted your assertion quite well so I’ll just leave it at that.

By RDS

June 4, 2008 11:08 AM | Link to this

Comrade Taxpayer really should consider not eating the paint chips..he/she/it actually called Comrade Bookman “Reasoned and logical” The Communist mind is an amazing thing to behold! Comrade Taxpayer, just repeat “from each according to his ability to each according to his needs” and you will feel better. Repeat as needed, you and Comrade Bookman can even join hands so as to increase your chants mojo.

By Taxpayer

June 4, 2008 11:46 AM | Link to this

No thanks, RDS. I do not care to be a part of your little organization. By the way, which do you think I am, he, she, or it? You are such a silly person. Did you really have anything of value to say to me or do you want to continue on your current path?

By Taxpayer

June 4, 2008 11:53 AM | Link to this

As I suspected, Mr. Bookman, Linder and Boortz and their band of followers cannot refute your statements. Instead, Linder and Boortz sit back and let some of their followers make worthless statements. They are truly cowards, Linder and Boortz, to not come here and defend their FairTax(TM).

By RDS

June 4, 2008 12:15 PM | Link to this

sniff,sniff Linder and Boortz won’t come on here and play with me, sniff,sniff. But Comrade Bookman, is it ok if Comrade Taxpayer smells your crotch because he has a case of man love. Its been fun, but i have a job i need to depart for and i’m sure you have a gov check to pick up. I enjoyed every post, have a wonderful tax supported day.

By A Non-Kool-Aid Drinker

June 4, 2008 12:19 PM | Link to this

RDS — Here’s a partial list of FairTax critics Boortz refuses to debate on the air:

In other words, Boortz (and Linder) won’t debate the FairTax with ANYBODY!

Doesn’t that tell you something?

By Taxpayer

June 4, 2008 12:57 PM | Link to this

Well, RDS.

It’s good to see that you have chosen to stick with that path. You know that path, don’t you. You never were meant to be educated enough to use anything other than your silly little words that you probably learned from your friends in that communist organization that you refer to so frequently. I didn’t really have any hopes for anything better from you. You gave yourself away in your first post. By the way, you didn’t answer me earlier questions. What wrong. I was just starting to be amused with your silly antics. Too bad. Coward.

By Izopen

June 4, 2008 3:00 PM | Link to this

Taxpayer and Kool Aid Drinker, Neither of you have read the book, as evidenced by your lame, uninformed comments. Also, if you think Boortz wouldn’t debate any ONE of those loonies you listed, then you don’t know the guy. It’s just a statement you make to puff yourselves up. If you’ll check, on even the most basic level, you’d find that Boortz is chomping at the bit to debate any and all on the subject. It’s a no-brainer so why on Earth would he refuse (unless debating someone so completely devoid of critical-thinking skills becomes morbidly tiresome)? What is massively amusing is most of those listed (like yourselves) are possibly arrogant enough to think you might be able to offer up something intelligent. What a hoot it would be to actually witness the anti-fairTax “debaters” wilt before the onslaught of facts. I’d pay gladly to see it.

By A Non-Kool-Aid Drinker

June 4, 2008 3:44 PM | Link to this

Izopen — So, we agree on something. I would also love to see Boortz debate the FairTax with a knowledgeable opponent who has something close to equal time. (That is, where Boortz can’t scream over the guy and cut his mike.)

But it ain’t gonna happen. Sorry to disillusion you, but your hero’s a coward.

And, hey, why should Boortz debate anyone on the FairTax? As long as he has sheep, that is, listeners like you and RDS, believing his every word and buying his books, he’ll never need to prove anything. But he’ll laugh all the way to the bank.

By Me

June 4, 2008 3:46 PM | Link to this

A couple of years ago on CSpan I did see Boortz debate a man whose name I can’t recall. The man agreed taxes need reforming but didn’t think the Fair Tax was the way to go. He ate Boortz’s lunch in the debate. Every question he asked was followed by “that’s not what we’re talking about”. Boortz kept saying, “I will only talk about the bill as it is written.” He was asked “What bill has ever gotten through Congress in the form it was written.” He had no answer to this. Anyone who has ever seen Boortz debate any subject knows he’s a terrible debater. He only thrives on his radio show where he can say “That’s not what we are talking about” and hang up on his caller. And by the way I disagree with Mr. Bookman about 90% of the time but that’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about the Fair Tax. In Emails to Mr. Bookman I’ve always found him to be respectful when we disagree and he sticks to the issue at hand in his arguments.

If Boortz wants to debate Bookman, why don’t they debate without an audience of cheerleaders on a radio show with a neutral host?…That would solve the problem wouldn’t it.

As for John Linder he lost all credibility on anything when he broke his term limit vow.

Wonder how much money he and Boortz have made off this little campaign?

By A Non-Kool-Aid Drinker

June 4, 2008 4:08 PM | Link to this

Me:

The “debate” you saw was a discussion tax reform with Boortz and Michael Graetz of Yale Law School. It was not a debate on the FairTax per se, since both Boortz and Graetz were promoting their own tax plans, except that Boortz knew nothing about Graetz’s tax plan so he couldn’t comment on it.

Graetz would (very politely) point out one fatal flaw with the FairTax after another (such as the impossibility of “keeping 100% of your paycheck” and the “embedded taxes” disappearing) and would then show how Graetz’s tax plan actualy addressed real problems.

Boortz would then say something like, “We’re fixing that in the next edition of the book,” and then start ranting about the estate tax or whatever.

I don’t consider that to count as a debate on the FairTax, though I’m sure Boortz does, mainly because nobody saw it so he can paint it however he wants.

By Taxpayer

June 4, 2008 4:12 PM | Link to this

Izopen,

You’re a hoot. Amuse me some more with your rantings. Tell me all about the BOOK to start with. Show me what you got, Bub.

By Me

June 4, 2008 5:53 PM | Link to this

A Non-Kool-Aid Drinker:

It had been quite a while since I saw that so I was a little hazy on details. I can tell from your comments that you actually did see it. You’re probably right it was more of a discussion than a debate. The thing that stood out in my memory though was how Mr. Boortz could never answer a direct question with a direct answer. At least 2 of us saw it anyhow.

By Taxpayer

June 4, 2008 7:27 PM | Link to this

What we need in Georgia is a Fair Tax. Of course, we cannot call it the FairTax(TM) because well, you know, it’s got that little protection associated with it’s use. I’ll bet we can come up with our own name for our very own statewide fair tax though — we just need a plan, a fairly great plan. That’s it. The FairlyGreatTaxPlan. No. That’s too much to remember — too hard to say…what we really need is something really simple — something simply Great — a GREAT Plan. But, what would it be. To start with, it must be fair. But, people must see that it is more than just fair. It must be great, really Great. It must be a fair and great plan. It must be a plan for a fair tax for Georgia residents. What we really need here in Georgia is a Fair Tax. Hmmmmm. This plan will need to be shared with many for it will take many to help share it with many more. This plan can only be shared with the many in the form of a book. A book of the plan is the plan to use to share the plan with the many. But, a book costs money. Money is needed to write the book of the plan. The plan needs money so the plan must be to get money in order to put the plan into word. Then and only then can the word of the plan be shared with the many. Come all you faithful and share. Share your money so your money can help share the plan with the many. With your money the plan can be shared. Send your money to those that will share. Send it now. Send all that you can spare. Thank You.

By Clinton Smith

June 4, 2008 8:32 PM | Link to this

Mr. Bookman, if you were to make the assertion that 2+2=5, would you then complain about how hoards of drones have been commanded to correct you on your error? Such is the mistake you made in your column. While you do have a point that companies can still pay lobbyists to exempt them from the FairTax, there is a defining difference between the “endgame scenario” when the FairTax is compared to the income tax. So in the FairTax case, let’s say that GM successfully lobbies to amend the tax code such that their vehicles are exempted. One of two things may now happen: either the federal revenue goes down because of the exemption or Congress must raise the FairTax rate. Ok, so what? The key to the FairTax is that on every purchase, the consumer can CLEARLY see the FairTax percentage and money paid in taxes. This means that the consumer WILL CLEARLY SEE THE TAX INCREASE. Furthermore, the tax increase will increase the cost of all goods, thereby decreasing consumption and federal revenue. Consequently, it’s in Congress’ best interests (granted, they don’t always act that way) to not allow exemptions to the FairTax.

By the way, what happens in the income tax case? Well, since the tax code is so muddled that no citizen really understands how much he pays in taxes, the company wins and Congress goes on being bought and sold for exemptions…as goes on currently.

Nice try, Mr. Bookman, do you have another shot? You can’t win this argument. Please read the books. Or sit down with Neal for an honest discussion instead of continuing your mind-numbed obstinance.

By Taxpayer

June 4, 2008 9:54 PM | Link to this

Well, I think if GM gets an exemption on cars, then the Fed is just going to have to increase the tax on the purchase of houses, for example, to offset the loss in revenue. After all, it’s not like the only thing that could happen is that the Fed would either accept less revenue or raise taxes on everyone. I mean, just think of what might happen if they did try to increase the tax rate on everyone. The first group of people to be hurt would be those living in poverty. So, the prebate would have to be increased and you can’t just increase the prebate for some without increasing it for all. The next thing you know Congress is interested in finding something else to increase taxes on such as luxury items or something else. Who would have ever thought that there were so many possible outcomes. These elected officials might even have to give up their pensions or else cut everyone else’s Social Security in order to make up for the lost revenues. Lord help us all if something terrible were to happen such as a war or something that required even more revenues.

By Lonnie Lohmeyer

June 4, 2008 10:31 PM | Link to this

It seems to me that Mr. Bookman and others are more than happy to tell you why something won’t work vs. what we can do to fix the problem. He has offered no solution to the tax issue.

People should consider that companies pay payroll tax, unemployment tax, social security and medicare, etc. (either full or partial). These costs are figured into the cost of goods/services.

A lot of people like to spend more time telling you why your idea “won’t work”. But when pressed on why, they state: “It needs this and this and this…” So, in reality, it will work with changes. Good ideas are good ideas, regardless of where they originate.

Just something to think about.

Lonnie

By Me

June 5, 2008 12:30 AM | Link to this

Let’s say I’m Ford Motor Company. I don’t sell directly to the public I sell to dealers. They sell to the public. Who collects the tax Ford Motor Company or the dealer?

By Taxpayer

June 5, 2008 6:58 AM | Link to this

I like ideas. After all, how many things start without an idea. I cannot even begin to count all the “brain storming” sessions I participated in during my years in corporate America. The very first thing everyone is told is that there is no such thing as a bad idea. It is just that — an idea. However, once all those ideas are listed, you have to take the next step of weeding and sorting and eliminating redundancy, etc. In the end, you will have necessarily gone through a process where the less favorable ideas are tossed and hopefully at least a few favorable choices remain. Then you have to start studying those choices in more detail. Sometimes you will have some fairly simple ideas that are just implemented and “field tested”. You know the type — to save energy, let’s turn off half the lights, for example, and measure its effect. Other ideas are far too complicated and there are too many uncertainties to risk exposing the general population without more analysis. That analysis may entail theoretical work and/or laboratory-scale evaluations. In the case of the FairTax(TM), one might say that the work has progressed to a point where a laboratory-scaled evaluation is needed in order to advance the study. I think that may very well be the case. So, how would one go about this study. Well, a guinea pig would be nice. A small town or a county if all the residents would agree to it. I recall some efforts to move toward an implementation at a state-wide level but I think that may be a little too much for starters. Of course, that’s just my opinion and we should all know what opinions are worth.

By A Non-Kool-Aid Drinker

June 5, 2008 11:22 AM | Link to this

Me: The dealer would collect the FairTax, not GM.

TaxPayer: I agree with you on brainstorming and generating creative ideas. One could have said that 15 years ago, the FairTax was an interesting idea developed from a brainstorming sessions.

But, after you pick out a few ideas from your brainstorming session to explore, then you start actually exploring them, including seeing if you can poke holes in the arguments in favor of those ideas. To the extent you find too many weaknesses, you either look for ways to fix the problems or go on to another solution. Perhaps you bring something from the original idea to use in another plan.

One of the main problems with the FairTax proponents is that they will not objectively admit to (let alone examine) the problems with the proposal. Anyone who points out one or more of the obvious problems with the FairTax is immediately attacked personally.

And many of the the FairTax supporters simply close their eyes and cover their ears and simply repeat what they’ve heard Neal Boortz say on his show without examining the facts.

It makes it very frustrating for those of us who actually want tax reform to have a rational discussion with FairTax supporters. Some of them are willing to frankly discuss its problems, but not many of them.

By Adakin Valorem

June 5, 2008 11:38 AM | Link to this

Bookman - “Let’s say I’m Ford Motor Co., and I’m pushing new cars that under the FairTax are sold at $30,000.…if I hire some lobbyists, make some campaign contributions and get new cars exempted from the FairTax, I can now sell those same new cars tax-free for $21,000. Through nothing more than politics, I have succeeded in cutting the cost of my product by almost a third. And at that much cheaper price, basic economics says I’m gonna sell a lot more cars and make a lot more money.”

Sir, whether or not a national sales tax is added on to the $21,000 price doesn’t affect Ford’s profit either way as it still earns only the actual profit allocated within the $21k sales price. If Ford successfully lobbied for an exemption for their products, would it not be reasonable to assume that Chrysler, Honda or Toyota or any other manufacturer would also be exempt? And if all new cars were equally exempt, what’s advantage is it for Ford?

And “basic economics says” if they were NOT equally exempt, how long do you think it would take GM, Toyota and Chrysler to blow the whistle on the influence peddling actions of Ford’s lobbyist AND the specific politicians that were cozy with Ford deal???

With the FairTax, it still would be a difficult task for lobbyists to be able to exempt their client’s products without blatantly exposing the bias, hypocrisy and influence paid for by Ford (in your example).

By Me

June 5, 2008 11:46 AM | Link to this

If I’m Ford Motor Company I don’t sell to the public I sell to dealers. The dealers sell to the public. Who collects and pays the tax, Ford Motor Company or the dealers?

By Me

June 5, 2008 11:50 AM | Link to this

Oops. Sorry didn’t see the earlier answer to my question.

By Taxpayer

June 5, 2008 12:04 PM | Link to this

Non-Kool-Aid Drinker,

I agree with you. I too am not against tax reform. In fact, I think we need major governmental reform. I think that in order to get that process under way and keep it moving forward, we have to engage more and more people in conversation. The needed thought process is not something that will happen fast but we have to keep trying every chance we get and be patient. I don’t worry about getting a wide range of responses back from people just as long as I get some kind of response. Like I said before, I like ideas. I’ll bet that the more people talk about this and other issues, the sooner we’ll hit on the ideas that will work. Even as I type this, I am reminded of one particular issue that many people raise — the government’s (presumed) inability to hide their spending from the public because of its visibility on every sales slip. Even though I disagree on the assumed outcome, I do agree that we need a lot more visibility into our own government’s activities — including spending. It’s the ONLY way for us to make truly informed decisions. We shouldn’t really need a change in the method of taxation in order to accomplish that though. We just need more openness. That concept however flies straight in the face of those that stand to profit from concealment. There’s just so much that needs to be said.

By Adakin Valorem

June 5, 2008 12:55 PM | Link to this

“By Me” is right.

The dealers collect and submit all sales taxes. Ford simply wholesales the cars to the dealers and doesn’t care a whit about the various sales taxes that local, state, or in this case, the Fed, may impose on that transaction.

But Bookman implies that lobbyists could buy special favor for THEIR clients… I wonder how long the competition would sit still for an exemption for just one company in a given industry.

By Jay Bookman

June 5, 2008 1:02 PM | Link to this

To Adakin:

Of COURSE Ford cares about the tax. It’s basic economics. Ford will sell a lot more cars if the total retail price of each vehicle is $21,000 than it would if the total retail price was $30,000.

By Jay Bookman

June 5, 2008 1:06 PM | Link to this

And yes, you’re right that the exemption would almost certainly be industrywide. But look at what’s happening in the auto industry today, with massive layoffs, plant closings, etc.

If the FairTax was in effect and the Big Three automakers and their unions went to Congress, begging for a tax exemption to save the industry and tens of thousands of jobs in an election year, what do you think Congress would do?

By Adakin Valorem

June 5, 2008 3:01 PM | Link to this

“If the FairTax was in effect and the Big Three automakers (GM, Toyota & Ford?) and their unions went to Congress, begging for a tax exemption to save the industry and tens of thousands of jobs in an election year, what do you think Congress would do?” - Bookman

Jay, as you know, the FT merely replaces the existing embedded taxes that go away after the paradigm shift to FT’s consumption tax. With the FT, all of the substantial amount of B-to-B production transactions in the automotive industry would be without tax consequence.

In the ‘80s, GMs CEO already did exactly what you said, i.e., “went to Congress, begging for a tax exemption to save the industry” and he told them that their embedded taxes and regulations inflate the cost of the auto industry’s products by more than 30%. So why do you think they would gripe about untaxing their production costs and consolidating those taxes into one simple retail fee? As far as the unions running to congress for ‘protection’, have you noticed that whenever Toyota, Honda or BMW builds a new plant here, they located the facility in a ‘right to work’ state instead of in a union controlled ‘rust belt’ location? Why is that? 

Today, our “global” American companies pay twice, once in the country where the sale occurs and again when the profits are brought back here. The macro-economic benefit to our domestic industry comes from the removal of the double taxation that GM and Ford now have (i.e. selling a [GM] Vauxhall or a [Ford] Cortina in Europe would no longer be taxed there, where the sale takes place, AGAIN when the profits are transferred to the parent company here in the U.S. AND AGAIN when those same ‘after tax’ (sic) profits are distributed to the shareholders in the form of dividends!!!).

The FT would effectively negate the need for GM and Ford to have ANY overseas factories since domestic production would be free of all embedded taxes and only be taxed ONCE… by the country where it’s sold.

A domestic widget mfg company could compete on equal or superior footing with global competitors by not having any of the embedded tax costs inflating the cost of the products they export. That means that Toyota would have additional incentive to build MORE factories here, hiring all your forlorn Ford and GM workers… but then Ford and GM would ALSO be moving their Vauxhall and European production over here since there would no longer be any tax penalty for exported products overseas. And foreign manufacturers would flock to our shores where they could build their export products without any embedded tax consequence. The demand for your ‘distressed workers’ would increase, lowering unemployment and raising the competitive wages offered to them.

By Taxpayer

June 5, 2008 3:40 PM | Link to this

How in the world do companies like Honda and Nissan come to the U.S. and set up factories to build cars right here for sale right here given the terrible tax burden. How in the world do they just blow the doors off of GM and Ford given the embedded taxes and all. I’m surprised that they don’t just build them all overseas (this is called sarcasm, folks) and ship them over here to sell them. There’s bound to be so much more profit in it for them. Back in my days in corporate America (I finally hung it up back in 2001), we were working (and had been for quite some time) to set up plants in China and India and Korea and other countries so we could (so we were told but that’s another story) penetrate their local markets. You see, these countries did not allow businesses to just ship their products in to their countries. Each country had its own unique set of requirements regarding local ownership, local labor, etc., in order to do any business at all with them. Of course, the rules also varied depending on the particular business and product. Needless to say, it gets complicated real fast. There is just so much more to it than a simple matter of taxes although taxes, tariffs, fees, and other regulations can and are used every day in order to manipulate certain markets, etc. No doubt about it. Of course, once all these “third-world” countries had been set up with all this manufacturing technology and their governments and peoples started to get a taste of the “good” life — the capitalist life (that envious life that was once limited more to the developed countries such as the U.S.) — they naturally wanted to get a bigger piece of the pie and there were plenty of businesses more than willing to be accommodative as long as there was more profit in it for them and there were regulations in place that favored such activities. But, I ramble. There is just so much that really needs to be said. I wonder. If I wrote a book on such matters, would it be a best seller. There would need to be intrigue and suspense. There would need to be these startling behind-the-scenes revelations that others had not considered even in their wildest dreams. Well, that part is certainly easy enough.

By steve

June 6, 2008 7:38 AM | Link to this

For all you idiots who thinks our current system is better than the FairTax, here is a little comparison for you. What if the FairTax was currently being used to fund the Federal Government and there was a new bill that would replace the simple FairTax with a complicated system incorporating an income tax, a payroll tax, a corporate tax, a capital gains tax and an estate tax? Would you be in favor of this new tax system if it did the following? (1) On April 15th of each year, you will now be required to file a complicated income tax return. A watch dog organization known as the IRS will be formed to audit these returns. If you fail to file this return or if you make mistakes you will be subject to stiff penalties. (2) To support your figures, you will be required to keep records of all your financial transactions. (3) Not everyone will be treated equal on these returns. There will be many deductions that only certain people will be able to take advantage of and there will loopholes which will protect mainly wealthy Americans. Taxpayers who aren’t able to take advantage of these loopholes will be required to make up the difference in lost revenue. (4) The new tax code will require you to hire an expensive advisor who in many cases will also not understand the entire new code. (5)Under the new bill, you will no longer receive 100% of your paycheck. The government will keep their share before you have a chance to spend it. (6) The new bill will penalize productivity; if you need to take on a second job to fill your family needs, the government will keep a larger up-front percentage. (7) Since you will no longer be paying a consumption tax, you will no longer receive your monthly prebate check. (8) Under the new bill there will be corporate taxes, capital gains taxes, and a 15.3% payroll tax. You will have 7.65% ducted from your paycheck and the company you work for must match this amount. In order for corporations to show a profit, these taxes and compliance costs will now be added to the cost of goods and services. This will cause an increase in prices of approximately 22% (9) No longer will the earnings from your savings and investments be free from tax. (10) No longer will the money you spend on education be tax free. You will be using after tax dollars for these purposes. (11) Since there will now be corporate taxes, capital gains taxes and payroll taxes, trillions of dollars will leave the American economy to work in foreign markets, but you will be able to purchase Chinese products for less than American made products. (12) The new tax bill would give more power back to government where it belongs. (13) Taxes are too transparent under the FairTax. The new bill will allow the Federal Government to raise taxes by manipulate the code without you realizing it. This is good. You shouldn’t have the privilege of knowing how much of your total income is being spent by the government. (14) With the elimination of the FairTax, lobbyists will now have the opportunity to convince congress to change the code to benefit their special interest. (15) And here is the best part of the new tax proposal; illegal aliens, drug dealers and tourists will no longer be paying taxes. You will be required to make up this lost revenue.

By Copyleft

June 6, 2008 7:53 AM | Link to this

Steve, you’re illustrating the same either/or fallacy that so often comes up with UnfairTax arguments: “If you don’t like the FairTax, why, you must think our CURRENT tax system is perfect! You’re crazy to be in love with our current system so much!”

It’s not an either/or question, Steve. We can change our current tax system WITHOUT falling for the UnfairTax scam.

By Taxpayer

June 6, 2008 8:15 AM | Link to this

For all you idiots who thinks our current system is better than the FairTax, here is a little comparison for you.

Well, such an opening line is sure to limit the audience of potential readers and respondents. It’s limited to the subset of idiots who “thinks…” Too bad. I was so looking forward to reading another well-conceived scenario on taxation and government regulations, etc. Perhaps I am being too harsh or even too rigid in my beliefs. Maybe I just need to be a little more open-minded, a little more thoughtful and even caring. Or, maybe not.

By A Non-Kool-Aid Drinker

June 6, 2008 10:36 AM | Link to this

Steve —Copyleft and Taxpayer are right. It’s not (and never was)an “either-or” question.

You will find very few critics of the FairTax who are not also critics of our current Tax Code. Just believe we don’t support the FairTax does not mean we do not support tax reform.

What frustrates me is that there are so many obvious ways to improve our Tax Code to address many of the concerns you and other FairTax supporters bring up — such as elminating the corporate income tax, eliminating deductions, credits and exemptions, simplifying the Tax Code — that don’t require a complete replacement of the Tax Code with a completely unproven (and, frankly, unworkable) tax system.

In addition, there are many well-thought-out tax reform plans out there (such as those by Michael Gaetz of Yale and Dale Jorgenson of Harvard) that don’t get any traction because (a) they can’t be explained in “sound-bites”, and (b) they don’t have a talk show host promoting them.

If even half of the FairTax supporters bothered to educate themselves on other tax plans that are actually well-conceived, we might get some movement to adopt a tax reform plan that made sense.

By Steve

June 7, 2008 8:25 AM | Link to this

Realistically there are only two ways for our federal government to generate tax revenue; by taxing either income or consumption. There is no question; the fairest way is consumption. At least with consumption we have some control on the amount of tax we pay. And it is really unfair to pay our government a portion of our income in advance. This is true slavery. It’s like a farmer having to pay for groceries even if all the food his family consumes is a product of his farm. Most of you FairTax critics believe we don’t need to replace our current tax system; we just need to patch an old bridge without repairing the broken down foundation. Instead of replacing the horse and buggy with the automobile, maybe we should have just put roller-skates on the horses.

By Taxpayer

June 7, 2008 9:25 AM | Link to this

Without getting into too much detail here, our government, at the federal level obtains its revenues, for example, from individuals, companies, and even other countries. Those revenues may be in the form of taxes on income, taxes on unearned income, usage fees, tariffs, licenses, etc. Our government sells everything from “airwaves” to “mineral rights” to “spare parts” and there are people, corporations, and even foreign countries (the latest media craze is with the sovereign funds), lined up to pay those “taxes”. Some of these purchasers might then do their little “value-added” thing with their acquisitions, for example, and pay a bunch of folks money in the form of salaries or dividends or interest and those folks turn around and pay the fed some tax money on their earnings or on their returns from investments, etc., and then the fed takes that money and spends it on everything from Alaskan bridges to wars against zealots. My, isn’t life complicated. Some people think that we could make it less complicated by changing every source of revenue for the fed into a tax on consumption. I just don’t see it.

By Steve

June 7, 2008 12:20 PM | Link to this

Mr. Taxpayer, I understand our federal government has many income sources. But the largest is that paid by the individual American taxpayer through income, payroll and embedded corporate taxes. My point was consumption verses income tax imposed on the American individual taxpayer and which is the fairest system. If you are not in favor of a consumption tax, I would be curious as to what Band-Aid you would use to fix our broken down income tax system.

By Taxpayer

June 7, 2008 1:20 PM | Link to this

Steve,

For one thing, I am in favor of using consumption taxes in order to gather a portion of the taxes that our government needs. I just happen to also be in favor of gathering funds in other ways as well. However, I am even more in favor of getting people in office that will scrutinize every penny spent and who will push for more and more openness in government. People need to get more involved and more educated regarding the activities of our government. We need to move toward more local control of many things. We need to cut out the inefficiencies associated with layers and layers of government in some cases and yet maintain or even add layers in other cases. I don’t view many things as a sequence of “If - Then” statements. There also are very few “Right - Wrong” scenarios. Like I said, life is complicated but I sure do like to see more people thinking about such things. It makes me feel good.

Now, regarding the current income tax system versus the FairTax(TM). I think you have to look at any proposed replacement for all or part of our current system very thoroughly. You need to keep in mind, for example, that the current system grew into what we currently have over a long time and a lot of it exists because “people” search for and try ways to avoid taxation and the government searches for ways to tax them. If you want an If - Then scenario to cling to, then try this one: If our government is going to spend money, then they have to collect it from someone. Now look at the two parts. First, the government is going to spend money. The issue is, how much. We can control that part to some extent by trying to minimize those expenditures. Of course, wars and other things will come along to mess up the best laid plans but we can still try. This is the stuff that books consist of and that’s just the way it is no matter what means of taxation is used. The second part of that If - Then is the collection of money from someone. Of course, we all want that someone to be another, don’t we. Why pay for something ourselves if someone else will do it. That is human nature. That is one of the reasons why we will always need something like an IRS. That is why we will always despise that thing we call IRS. The no good, scum-sucking, worthless bums — always trying to take my hard-earned money. Of course, once I reach retirement age[1], I might very well be blessing the government for getting that Social Security check deposited on time or cursing the IRS for sticking me with another tax bill for the previous year’s interest, dividends, and capital gains on my investments or both for all I know. But, that’s a side issue that deals more with one’s perspective as well as how well one planned for the uncertainty of life. Einstein should have worked on that theory of relativity. Enough of that though. What about the issue of who pays for what and how much they pay. Wow. What a topic. If only there were some way for me to treat that topic fairly here — in xxx words or less. I better not push my luck. In closing, I say hang in there and keep an open mind. If someone says Yes, say No just to see what happens. Or you could say maybe or why or you could even agree if you don’t care to think about that particular topic any more.

[1]I am “retired” from my former corporate job. I’m just not old enough to draw Social Security.

By Steve

June 9, 2008 10:42 AM | Link to this

Why do we need the FairTax?

It’s not because you will no longer be required to keep income and expense records in order to file a complicated tax return by April 15th.

It’s not because illegal aliens and drug dealers will now be paying their fair share.

It’s not because the prebate will eliminate or reduce the tax burden for the poor.

It’s not because of the transparency that will help control government spending.

It’s not because you will now have your full gross paycheck before the government takes their unfair upfront share.

It’s not because the elimination of corporate taxes, payroll taxes and compliance costs will reduce the price of everything we purchase.

It’s not because it will eliminate all the loopholes that benefit only the wealthy.

It’s not because lobbyists will loose their power.

It’s not because you will no longer fear being audited by the IRS.

The real reason we need to FairTax is to save our economy. We need the FairTax because it will reward rather than punish our manufactures as does our current tax system. One by one we are losing American manufactures because they can’t compete with foreign corporations. We can not continue to tax American corporations; the ones creating our jobs and again tax the ones who work for these corporations. Most of our imports are from foreign counties who use a value added tax system. This is a tax that is added on at the manufacturing level. Countries using the VAT system do not required this tax to be added to their corporations’ exports. Under our corporate income tax system, corporations must still pay corporate taxes on the profits of their exports. The FairTax would eliminate these taxes thus making our corporations more competitive in the world market place. Once foreign corporations realized they may build factories in the US and be total tax exempt, they would flock to our country; no more VAT tax, no corporate tax, to capital gains tax, and no payroll taxes. The unemployment rate for the month of May 2008 took one of the largest monthly jumps in history. Each time a job is eliminated, our government must make up the lost revenue from the ones who are still working. The FairTax will create many new jobs. Since the FairTax is designed to be revenue neutral, the more jobs there are the smaller the tax burden per worker.

I get so tired of reading all the lame arguments against the FairTax; like 23% verses 30%, and taxing savings that have already been taxed under our current system. If we want to create a great economy that will benefit future generations, we need the FairTax.

By A Non-Kool-Aid Drinker

June 10, 2008 3:00 PM | Link to this

Steve —

If you bothered to check, you would see that the most, if not all, countries with VATs also have corporate income taxes, personal income taxes and social security taxes. There’s no free lunch.

By Steve

June 10, 2008 7:10 PM | Link to this

Non-Kool-Aid Drinker

It is true that most countries with VATs also have corporate income taxes, but for example, let’s compare the tax burden on China’s exports to ours. China has a 25% corporate and a 17% VAT. US corporations can pay a federal rate as high as 39% and a state rate as high as 12% for a total of 51% which by the way is ultimately paid by the consumer. The maximum tax burden for Chinese exports is 25% and the maximum tax burden for US exports is 51%. I believe our corporations could shift the balance of trade in their favor if there was a 0% tax burden on their exports.