AJC.com > Opinion > Opinion Talk > Archives > 2007 > April > 26 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USLet’s talk more FairTax
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Writing about the dubious aspects of the proposed FairTax, as I did in a recent column, turns out to be a bit like kicking over an ant hill. As soon as the column was published, FairTax zealots swarmed by the hundreds to defend their cause. In fact, many of their responses were downright startling in their similarity. Email after email made almost exactly the same points in almost exactly the same language, as if they had been indoctrinated. The indoctrinator in chief, talk-radio host Neal Boortz, made some claims about my work on his show, which I address here. Apparently, he also challenged me to debate the issue, which I’m more than ready to do. I’ll go live on his show — the same forum he used to criticize my work — and we’ll talk it over. Yet for some reason, Boortz now refuses to let his audience hear that discussion. On Wednesday, we published a rebuttal to my column from the folks at FairTax.org, giving them access to our readers to make their argument. But apparently that’s a one-way street.
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By steve-o
April 26, 2007 9:09 AM | Link to this
Bravo, Mr. Bookman!
Bravo!
By far one of the best columns printed in the AJC over the past year!
By Marie
April 26, 2007 9:28 AM | Link to this
Jay:
Why should Neal Boortz who has 3+ millions of listeners allow a 2 bit editorialist from a struggling newspaper to come on his radio show? I believe the only reason you wrote the original article criticizing the FairTax was to get his attention.
If you listen to Rush, Sean, Neal and other leading talk show hosts they are constantly quoting from the op-eds of ‘real elite editorialists’ such as Maureen O’Dowd, Thomas Sowell, Thomas Friedman, Ann Coulter, Camille Paglia, etc., but nowhere in the history of their show will any of them refer to your op-eds.
So how do you elicit a response from just one of them — you write a hit piece on something you know Neal is passionate about and will rush to defend. Brilliant!!! You get your name and newspaper mentioned on the air to millions of people. Heck Neal even links to your op-ed on his website — and your op-ed gets read by more people than would otherwise read your dribble. And now you demand air-time to debate this issue even though you know Neal will clean your clock.
Gee Jay you’re not as dumb as I thought you were (LOL)!!!!
By Kevin
April 26, 2007 9:42 AM | Link to this
Jay,
Brilliant set of articles demonstrating the “ground truth” of the plan.
The facts speak for themselves. If the Bush Administration’s 2005 tax commission called this plan “unworkable” then it must be. Who are we to question the decisions of a commission sponsored by the Executive Branch?
Your demonstration using the Fair Tax website calculator further demonstrates the disparity in how the Fair Tax will be applied.
Again, excellent articles.
For the record, I am neither Republican nor Democrat, have no hidden agenda, nor allegiance to any party or political figure.
By D
April 26, 2007 9:45 AM | Link to this
I think our tax system should be overhauled and simplified, but not worse by the so-called ‘fair’ tax. just like anything that uses a name like that, better put your guard up, i.e., patriot act, open meetings act, intelligent design, etc. but as a middle class person I have to spend all the money Imake each month to survive, I would get taxed on 100% of my income. a rich person, making tons of money and wouldn’t have to spend all their income for family operating costs, being taxed on a small percentage of their overall income, putting the rest away and letting it earn interest and just living off of that, sweet deal, but it’s not America. and we’ve tried the trickle down effect, or more like the trickle ‘on’ effect is more like it. the rich will not stimulate our economy by their expensive foreign made gucci stuff, bmw’s, mercedes, swiss watches. how can people be so easy manipulated into shooting themselves in their own foot? what the hell is happening to this country? get back to basics and ignore the politicians and the politics!
By RS
April 26, 2007 10:09 AM | Link to this
Even if the numbers behind the FairTax are completely off-base, Jay Bookman (and everyone else) should be for the IDEA. It’s obvious the IRS has become a burden on all of us and is an ineffective and unfair means of tax collection.
By Chas
April 26, 2007 10:09 AM | Link to this
It’s always interesting to get the other side after one of Boortz’s rants. He allows no other opinon to enter in without attacking the person - not the message - much the same way “Marie” just replied. Marie - please make a point and not try to just belittle the writer.
By Ben
April 26, 2007 10:25 AM | Link to this
Funny how you’ll attack every decision the Bush administration makes, but when they agree with you on taxes, suddenly they know what they are talking about.
By steve
April 26, 2007 10:25 AM | Link to this
obviously we all agree we have a problem with the tax code as it stands. 60,000 pages of code, come on thats beyond crazy. so if we all agree thats crazy, why NOT try something else, something simpler something that may work. who else has a solution? what solution, 5,000 more pages added to a code nobody can decipher anyway?
By Ted P
April 26, 2007 10:26 AM | Link to this
It just seems funny that you site 2 things incorrectly hundreds of times, if you want to know about the Fair Tax go to FairTax.org, not Neil Boortz. Why do you always forget to remove the embedded tax before you do your calculations i.e.; A $100.00 product before fair tax is only $88 after you remove the embedded tax. Then add the Fair tax on, and what is your answer now? And if you are sure of your position when are you debating Neil Boortz on the FairTax subject?
By DJ
April 26, 2007 10:33 AM | Link to this
Marie: you consider Ann Coulter, the sensationalist smear-spewing hate-baiting egotistical attention w******* to be an “elite editorialist”?? You loose all credibility with that one - why didn’t you just post “DITTO” and leave it at that?
By tuttigym
April 26, 2007 10:37 AM | Link to this
Mr. Bookman: I, too, am against the Fair Tax because the HR 25 is poorly written, conceived, and highly flawed. Your “arguments” will never carry any weight with the advocates because they have their “answers” which cannot be swayed. Specifically: 1. HR 25 defines all government employees as “service” personnel (local, state, and federal) so that each govt. entitiy must pay the fed treasury the equivalent of 23% of all salaries. Where will this money come from? Is it constitutional to tax local governments?
All insurance premiums are to be taxed (personal) because they are consided to a “service.”
a. Millions of policyholders with government issued or sponsored insurance will immediately see a 23% raise in their rates, i.e., federal flood insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, wind storm pools coverages, assigned risk auto and property coverages, and earth movement coverages. b. By taxing the premiums and not the cost of producing the insurance contract, the law violates Title VII discrimination for age and gender in that the majority portion of the insurance premium is based on RISK.
Money, as a commodity, is not excluded and like renting an apartment would be subject to the tax. Whenever money is rented or purchased in every transaction from using a credit card which is not fully paid off, to any type of loan on either new or USED large purchases, that money will be taxed at 23%.
In the Boortz book, only 3-4 sentences are devoted to health care and the “liklihood” of reduced costs in medical care and insurance premiums.
a. No such research has ever been done to confirm these statements or is available to debate. b. The current third (3rd) party payor system will not allow for such “reductions.” c. The 45 million uninsured would be “nailed” with a 23% cost increase of all such services because they currently have the highest billings in health care.
The banking and lending industry is currently NOT onboard with the fair tax because: a. There are no current rules for collecting the tax. b. Financing big ticket items (new), i.e., homes, cars, boats, etc. would entail financing the 23% tax which in the event of a total loss (insurance) would net the owner a depreciated amount of money after the first year of ownership. c. The home building industry would die due to lack of sales of new dwellings with that 23% “imbedded”(?) tax. d. The consumer of new homes would have no equity in their purchase because of the tax.
There are more real reasons, but without this knowledge, a left thinking individual such as yourself has no real chance of winning. By the way, Dr. Karen Walby, chief economist for fairtax.org, could not adequately answer any of these concerns, and Neal Boortz would not respond to my e-mails.
DB Wilshin (tuttigym)
By lopro
April 26, 2007 10:45 AM | Link to this
Mr. Bookman, You are allowing you sense of persoanl outrage to overshadow intelligent analytical discourse over the tax. But I suppose that true economics will not sell papers.
The beauty of the whole FairTax debate is that it allows us to see that whether you are fiscally progressive or conservative, the constraints placed on us by the current tax system are being removed in this forum. It gives us all a chance to see what kind of tax system would be preferable. I have not see many people who support the status quo.
With this being said, it is in my not-so-humble opinion that the FairTax in its proposed from be implemented. It is still a progressive tax . How can giving a prebate to low income earners be considered regressive unless they are living outside of their means?
The real issue however is not the economics, which Mr. Bookman and others hide behind the dubious 23/30 percent debate, rather the issue of free choice in spending. People think that the federal income tax has always been in place and so it must continue. What did people do before 1913 when the income tax was implemented? I suppose people chose how to spend their money and expanded the country to extraordinary levels of industry for the time. Why were all of the immigrants so desperate to come over and make a days wage and take that full day’s wage home with them?
In my rant here, I simply want to note that I think people are afraid of personal choice. Being told what to do by the “system” has become an easy way to budget for the future. Social Security and Medicare are not going to leave people stranded in their homes when the FairTax is implemeted. The FairTax allows the American people to be accountable for themselves. Is that too much to ask a person? Just be accountable for yourself.
We could get into the deep economics but I’m not sure how many people who lack personal accountability could understand the arguemnt unless the government provided the data for them.
By chris
April 26, 2007 10:47 AM | Link to this
Mr. Bookman’s first column called FairTax adherents “cult-like”. Now he calls us “zealots”. And he has an ah-HA! moment when many of us responded to him with similar arguments. Given that we were all responding to the same misstatements, why wouldn’t you expect a flood of similar responses? Your writing on many subjects, not just this one, relies on misstatement of the other side’s argument, combined with illogic and simplistic reasoning.
By Blind Homer
April 26, 2007 11:06 AM | Link to this
How can a regressive tax system be considered ‘fair’? Since 2003 we already have some regressive aspects to current Federal income tax. Anne Chambers Cox, whom I presume doesn’t work at all, has a lower marginal tax rate than I do, after the Republican congress changed the max rate on capital gains to 15%. Why not a flat tax rate on all income? That would be fairer than what we have or this FairTax nonsense.
By Thomas
April 26, 2007 11:20 AM | Link to this
I think they are both behaving like five year olds going “Liar, liar, pants on fire.” Boortz should let Bookman on his show since he did feel free to discuss it himself there and it is a “talk show”. Bookman needs to be less self-righteous and talk about the actual basis of the fair tax, or fairtax rather than differences in percentages unless he brings support for them.
By Joe L
April 26, 2007 11:55 AM | Link to this
Ted P. - Again here is some 5th grade math for you. If the product costs $.88 and the tax is $.12 then the percentage tax is .12/.88 = 14% NOT 12%. If you boss told you he was giving you a 30% raise are you not going to multiply your salary by 1.3? If I multiply .88 x 1.12 = $.985 NOT $1.00. Not to mention even the consumption tax advocates are putting forth an erroneous 23% not 12% figure!
By Joe L
April 26, 2007 12:00 PM | Link to this
Iopro - ALL consumption taxes are by nature regressive and not progressive. It’s impossible for them to be progressive, they can be argued to be “flat” at best, but in any reality they are regressive. The lower your income the larger the portion of it that has to be consumed (basic subsistence). Therefore you are taxed on a larger portion of your salary. It doesn’t matter if the percentage is the same. This is the same problem with capital gains taxes. Too people making the same “income” can pay wildly different taxes.
By WakeUpAmerica!
April 26, 2007 12:32 PM | Link to this
Folks, the IRS is just an arm of the privately owned Federal Reserve. Whether it be the Fair Tax or a flat tax, the IRS/curret tax system needs to be abolished (along with the international banking cartel controlled Fed). For much further information, PLEASE checkout the following documentaries on the IRS & private Fed…
http://www.freedomtofascism.com/
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936&q=The+Money+Masters
By Tim
April 26, 2007 12:45 PM | Link to this
Thanks Jay for manning the front lines against ideological bullies like Boortz!
By Exchequer
April 26, 2007 12:50 PM | Link to this
Boortz is a bully, and Bookman is a coward. They need to get married.
By Ted P
April 26, 2007 12:57 PM | Link to this
Joe L. All I did was remove the embedded tax from the fictional $100 purchase. What are you going an about?
By lopro
April 26, 2007 1:02 PM | Link to this
Joe L. yes, it is regressive when you analyze the simple instance of lower income earners using a larger percentage of their earnings to pay the tax. However, the revenue generated by the FairTax will be from the wealthier class. The progressive nature of the multiplier effect based on the price of goods and services allows for this. So yes, if you argue that a larger percentage of a low income earners wages go to pay taxes on goods while the majority of tax revenue is attributed to those with higher earnings, you may assume the consumption tax to be a more neutral system. However, the prebate helps to offset much of the regressivness of the consumtion tax.
By the man
April 26, 2007 1:10 PM | Link to this
Whataburger is most delicious…..
By Ted P
April 26, 2007 1:15 PM | Link to this
Bottom line! Any body that thinks the IRS/Tax system that we have is fair is crazy. We have needed an over haul for over 50 years. All I hear is people putting down a change that we have not even tried. That is like critiquing a movie that you have not seen. All of the liberals that don’t think that the Fair Tax is good enough for you quit your complaining and let’s hear your idea. Oh that’s right nobody has told you your idea yet. At least some body else has an idea that we can try.
By Marie
April 26, 2007 1:19 PM | Link to this
In response to Chas and DJ:
Chas: I’m simply stating my opinion that Jay wrote his original piece in order to call some attention to himself. And sorry but his own actions bare me out by his insistence that he appear on Neal’s show to debate him and not within the public square (ie a college) which is what Neal suggests.
I also find it hilarious that you want to attack Neal or me for criticizing Jay, but, you fail to attack Jay for his over-the-top criticism of the proponents of the FairTax. For him to use such strong language as to call people who believe in this idea a CULT is worse than what Don Imus said to get fired.
DJ: Regardless of your PERSONAL opinions of Ann Coulter she is considered one of the elite editorialists in this nation. Her op-eds have appeared in multiple major newspapers and political mags across the country. Anyone who reach that status regardless of what you PERSONALLY feel about them can only be considered an elite editorialist.
By tuttigym
April 26, 2007 1:29 PM | Link to this
Are there any FairTax proponents out there who can provide substanitive responses to the real flaws and concerns to the law as previously submitted? The petty ramblings about 23% or 30%, the math challenges, personal attacks, regressive or repressive, etc. do not add any clarity to the debate. The “revenue neutral” stance cannot be sustaned without the taxing of all govt’s employee salaries and wages, the taxing of all personal insurance premiums, and yes, even the taxing of all personal loans in their various forms. tuttigym
By Kyle
April 26, 2007 1:43 PM | Link to this
Will someone tell me why the rich should pay more taxes (by % of income) than the poor? Why shouldnt everyone pay the same rate? Please explain that to me. PLEASE
By Joe L
April 26, 2007 1:59 PM | Link to this
The fact that percentages don’t work that way Ted P. If there is a 23% tax you multiply the cost of the good by 1.23 to get the final purchase cost. That’s NOT what you are doing, you are determining the percentage AFTER the percentage increase is added in. If your boss did your raise that way you would revolt.
By barrycdog
April 26, 2007 2:00 PM | Link to this
See Bookman, you have supporters so engage Boortz in the public forum at Emory.
By Lady B
April 26, 2007 2:00 PM | Link to this
Jay -
Thank you - thank you - thank you for addressing the FairTax again. Even negative publicity is publicity. I’m hoping we get you really hacked off so you keep bringing it back again and again.
As far as a fair debate goes. You should have no problem getting folks who are sympathetic to your views to fill the audience. And - I’d even bet that Boortz would let you have a second person with you to help you with questions and answers. Maybe a nice economist or accounting prof from GT or GSA would assist you. In my humble opinion Boortz would still clean your clock.
Tuttigym -
I hope someone will address your well written points and I’m going to pass your comments on to someone who’s a lot more versed in the whole program than I am.
TTFN - keep up the good work.
High Priestess of the Cult of FairTax Zealots.
By Joe L
April 26, 2007 2:05 PM | Link to this
My idea is a tiered tax system with zero deductions. The tax code would be reduced to say 20 pages or so and the tax percentage rights would most likely fall because of the increased collections. This eliminates all the lobbying efforts and handouts to generally well off people and makes more people pay into the system (the difficulty of our current tax system and it’s obvious inequities are two large reasons people cheat the system).
Trying ANYTHING is stupid Ted P. We haven’t tried collecting 90% tax from everyone either so I guess it’s worthwhile since we haven’t done it. Or we can actually assess whether an idea is better or worse than the current system - consumption tax is worse.
By DB Cooper
April 26, 2007 2:05 PM | Link to this
Kyle - the reason is because liberal democrats feel that we should support the lazy, who pay no taxes. This is a great system that punishes people for being sucessful, thanks to the likes of Jay Bookman. By the way, who is he?
By Lady B
April 26, 2007 2:13 PM | Link to this
The rich would only pay more if they bought more. The poor would pay less if they bought less and bought cheaper stuff than the rich do. But everyone would still be paying the same rate.
People who under report their income.
-People who operate on a cash basis
-Waitstaff at Restaurants
-service staff that receives tips. (Beauty shops, barber shops, spas, massage parlors etc.
People who don’t pay taxes now but would under the FairTax
-Foreigners who work here but are paid by their foreign employers.
-Diplomats and staff at the UN.
-Drug Dealers
-Prositutes
-Some illegal immigrants
-Foreign visitors who shop
and the list goes on.
Drug Dealers Bank
By Joe L
April 26, 2007 2:28 PM | Link to this
Yes a none of these “underreporting” people would have any problems or capability to go to a monstrous black market that would have a huge incentive to exist.
Also why would corporations produce goods here where they would be taxed on all the raw materials (or else this is complete corporate welfare) when they can produce it overseas and you pay the taxes when you buy the product? Why would foreign companies buy American goods at a 23% tax rate?
By Joe L
April 26, 2007 2:35 PM | Link to this
Oh as far as drug dealers and prostitutes, just make it legal and collect the taxes on that income. Much better solution.
By peasant
April 26, 2007 2:48 PM | Link to this
hey brown shirts, which one is it, are those darn liberals wimps or are they the boogeyman, it can’t be both.
By Kyle
April 26, 2007 3:08 PM | Link to this
Ohh i am completely for the fairtax because the poor WOULD have to pay the same as the rich and stop taking advantage of the system.
By Blind Homer
April 26, 2007 3:16 PM | Link to this
Kyle - the actual theory is that the rich haven’t gotten that way solely through their own labors. They got rich (at least those that earned rather than simply inherited) through our capitalistic system, capitalizing on the labors of others. Look at it this way. You own a T-shirt business. You buy T-shirts for $2, put a design on them that costs $1 dollar in materials and $2 in labor. You then sell the shirts for $5. But you get rich keeping $1 for each shirt because you only pay your labor $1 instead of the $2 they really added to the value of the shirt. Some people think this entitles the government to take $.50 of your dollar and re-distribute it in food stamps and other programs for the starving children of your employees. Or to secure your way of life by policiing the Middle East so the terrorists don’t blow up your business or kill you and your employees.
By Joe L
April 26, 2007 3:17 PM | Link to this
Kyle - You do understand there is a prebate so that the poor don’t pay taxes right? Sorry to disappoint you sad, little inhuman soul.
By Steve Hathcock
April 26, 2007 3:21 PM | Link to this
I truly believe that not ONE of the above respondents has read even PORTIONS of The FairTax Book. The greatest beneficiaries to the FairTax will be….the poor. C’mon, people —- it’s a fast read. Do it.
By Lady B
April 26, 2007 3:25 PM | Link to this
Joe L.
People cheat now and they would cheat under any system, but, if all the current embedded taxes are taken out before the FairTax is added and the price of the item is about the same, why would there be any more of a black market than there is now. There is more possibility of bringing manufacturing back to the USA if we can be competative.
Please read the book. I suggest the paperback version because they added pages of objections and ‘reasons why it won’t work’ and gave pretty darned good answers and explanations to those objections.
I agree that drugs and prostitution should be de-criminalized or made legal but that isn’t likely to happen. The FairTax is more likely to happen if enough folks get on board.
By John
April 26, 2007 3:28 PM | Link to this
Mr. Bookman,
Did it ever occur to you the reason why most of the emails made exactly the same points in exactly the language is that the truth usually does not deviate quite as much as distortions of the truth.
By Kyle
April 26, 2007 3:30 PM | Link to this
my poor debate isnt about the fairtax really. I get the T-shirt example, but my feeling is the cheep labor should be smart enough to start their own business and get someone dumber than them to do the work. i dont have my own business, but do work in a good job. how did i get here, hard work and paid for my own schooling.
i also understand the poor dont pay taxes, and that is just not fair in my mind. i think we all should pay the same rate, no matter who you are, what you do, or what you earn. this is why, for now, the fairtax is the best option.
By Duke
April 26, 2007 3:34 PM | Link to this
20th-century wars were funded mainly by the 95% depreciation in the dollar, a hidden tax on everyone holding dollars. Government could fund itself completely through debt/inflation. Tax policy is for redistributing wealth and influencing behavior. Income taxes discourage productive work; capital gains taxes discourage investment; both discourage private capital formation. Sales taxes have the opposite effects. Fair Tax would be attractive and encouraging to businesses. Lower tax rates on more economic activity yield higher tax revenues.
But all is futility. Private capital is destroyed by currency inflation. The only way to keep up is to borrow.
The problem is not our tax system, but our monetary system. All banks create money out of nothing, backed by debt. When I borrow money, the banker makes an account entry. I write checks on it. Debt is the only way that money can be created and introduced into circulation. When the Treasury prints dollars, they are not money until a bank uses them as reserves for debt. Every dollar in circulation still pays interest to some bank. If all debt were repaid, there would be no money.
The Federal Reserve System is an illegal cartel, a union of private banks which has been given monopoly control over U.S. monetary policy. The President appoints the governing board of this private corporation, but that is the extent of governmental involvement or oversight. The Governors of the Federal Reserve serve the interest of the private banks who own the stock of the Federal Reserve System. Ultimately, they serve the unimaginably wealthy individuals who own the majority stock of the member banks. Those men are internationalists with no national loyalty.
By Blind Homer
April 26, 2007 4:16 PM | Link to this
The other problem is the worship and necessity of growth. Why is the economy in ruin unless per capita GDP increases? If Exxon made $8B last quarter, why do they need to make $9B next quarter? Why do we have to have unsecured borders allowing millions of illegal immigrants in just to keep the growth going in the housing market?
By WakeUpAmerica!
April 26, 2007 4:30 PM | Link to this
Duke, very well said/explained! You are very wise indeed. :)
Folks, I’ll again highly recommend these two outstanding, informative, free documentaries on the IRS & Fed…please further educate yourselves & check these out…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsZO6G7dfpI
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936&q=The+Money+Masters
By Karl
April 26, 2007 4:38 PM | Link to this
I am a huge Neal Boortz fan and Jay you are obviously a huge bedwetter but I have to admit it was pretty funny listening to Boortz resort to name calling and put downs in responce to your column today. He sounded just like a little liberal baby attacking you. I can’t understand why he is so insecure sometimes. Jay I may have to start reading your column.
By Joe L
April 26, 2007 4:41 PM | Link to this
”, but, if all the current embedded taxes are taken out before the FairTax is added and the price of the item is about the same, why would there be any more of a black market than there is now”
Because this is a complete pie-in-the-sky assumption (and it’s just that an assumption) that is far from what will happen. The price of goods and services WILL NOT fall and 30% will be added to them. Thus giving people a monstrous reason to purchase goods illegally.
Any book that maintains that $1.30 purchase price on a $1 good is a 23% tax is not worth reading (unless I want a good piece of fiction or am out of toilet paper). The economics and assumptions of this book are so false and unrealistic it’s outrageous.
By Andy
April 26, 2007 4:46 PM | Link to this
Bookman has proven one thing conclusively: Boortz is a self-contradicting coward.
By JulieB
April 26, 2007 5:16 PM | Link to this
What will happen to the FairTax in 50 years? We’ll end up with the same 60,000 page code from patching all the loopholes. And there will be loopholes because who wants to pay 100% of their tax owed? Didn’t the progressive tax start out at one rate for each group in 1913?
The only reason people like the fair tax is because they’ll only pay taxes on what they buy. So to lower their tax they’ll buy less. Buying less will slow our economic growth, demand will decrease causing employers to pay less in salary, small business will not be able to sell enough and probably be shut out by the international corporations and the USA will be run by WalMart.
Personally I dont like WalMart so I am against the fair tax.
By Freedom Skeers the Connies
April 26, 2007 5:20 PM | Link to this
When a self-important blowhard like Boortz supports a change in our tax regime, you must realize first and foremost that he and others of his ilk would only stand to GAIN by the transition; the rest of us are on our own. Jay Bookman has long been the voice of reason on the AJC editorial page. Sorry, Neal, but Jay’s right: you’re a coward armed with 20 hours a week of airtime. As long as you- and you alone- man the “dump” button, you will always be the champion of an argument. Too bad you don’t permit debate. It would be a helluva lot more interesting than your bloviating.
By WRCz
April 26, 2007 6:07 PM | Link to this
Leave it to Jay Bookman to come to the defense the poor, defenseless IRS and our country’s beloved April 15 ritual. Thanks Jay.
By Ripdog
April 26, 2007 6:11 PM | Link to this
Yes, the tax system should be overhauled but not by the “Fair Tax” program. I have a problem with a program that put’s a flat tax on everything. Although this may sound reasonable at first glance, low income individuals will have a disproportinate amount of their paycheck going toward staple items such as food and other household items. I know there is supposed to be a provision in which the government decides which essential items aren’t taxed but there are inherent flaws with a government agency telling households what’s essential. In closing, the Fair Tax isn’t fair. It’s just shifting the burden to those Americans who aren’t equipped to comprehend the ramifications of this proposal.
By Ripdog
April 26, 2007 6:17 PM | Link to this
I think many people on this board are taking negative comments about Fair Tax and a vote of support for the current tax system. I don’t think that is the case. I will go out on a limb and say most half way intelligent individuals are opposed to the current tax system. It is not progressive, it prevents economic growth, and it doesn’t correlate with an individuals spending. I really don’t think our current tax system should be linked with a discussion of the Fair Tax discussion. Both systems are flawed.
By Freedom Skeers the Connies
April 26, 2007 6:31 PM | Link to this
I love the way the Fair Tax proponents insist that retailers will drop their embedded tax the moment their new regime comes into effect. Ain’t gonna happen. When the EU went to the Euro, there were laws in place that prohibited gouging. But it happened anyway. What used to cost 2 Deutsch Marks soon cost 2 Euros…when in reality, it should have only cost 1 Euro. Just sayin’….
By Lady B
April 26, 2007 6:35 PM | Link to this
Ripdog
The poor make out the best of anyone. First off they get a prebate to cover the tax on essentials.
From the FairTax.org website:
The poor don’t buy new cars, new appliances, new houses, new clothes, high end cosmetics, gourmet food, expensive vacations, etc etc etc. Lot’s don’t pay taxes now so they’ll actually end up ahead of the game.
By JW
April 26, 2007 7:40 PM | Link to this
Jay’s a douche, always has been, always will be. Im’ sure he’d be much happier if we sent ALL of our pay into the government, and let them dole it out to us as they see fit. I mean, really, it’s just not fair to those who won’t work to not have any money. To him the bad people are those who are actually productive in our society. Like most liberal douche-bags, he thinks our great Democratic ‘Socialist’ Party leaders know how to better spend the money you and I EARN by working. Like I said, he’s a douche, and will always be a douche.
By JB
April 26, 2007 7:47 PM | Link to this
Just a little something a friend sent to me the other day:
The other day I was reading Newsweek magazine and came across some poll data I found rather hard to believe. It must be true given the source, right?*
The Newsweek poll alleges that 67 percent of Americans are unhappy with the direction the country is headed and 69 percent of the country is unhappy with the performance of the president. In essence 2/3s of the citizenry just ain’t happy and want a change.
So being the knuckle dragger I am, I started thinking, ”What we are so unhappy about?”
Is it that we have electricity and running water 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? Is our unhappiness the result of having air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter? Could it be that 95.4 percent of these unhap py folks have a job? Maybe it is the ability to walk into a grocery store at any time and see more food in moments than Darfur has seen in the last year?
Maybe it is the ability to drive from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean without having to present identification papers as we move through each state? Or possibly the hundreds of clean and safe motels we would find along the way that can provide temporary shelter?
I guess having thousands of restaurants with varying cuisine from around the world is just not good enough. Or could it be that when we wreck our car, emergency workers show up and provide services to help all and even send a helicopter to take you to the hospital.
Perhaps you are one of the 70 percent of Americans who own a home. You may be upset with knowing that in the unfortunate case of a fire, a group of trained firefighters will appear in moments and use top notch equipment to extinguish the flames thus saving you, your family and your belongings.
Or if, while at home watching one of your many flat screen TVs, a burglar or prowler intrudes, an officer equipped with a gun and a bullet-proof vest will come to defend you and your family against attack or loss. This all in the backdrop of a neighborhood free of bombs or militias raping and pillaging the residents. Neighborhoods where 90 percent of teenagers own cell phones and computers.
How about the complete religious, social and political freedoms we enjoy that are the envy of everyone in the world? Maybe that is what has 67 percent of you folks unhappy.
Fact is, we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats the world has ever seen. No wonder the world loves the U.S., yet has a great disdain for i ts citizens. They see us for what we are. The most blessed people in the world who do nothing but complain about what we don’t have, and what we hate about the country instead of thanking the good Lord we live here.
I know, I know. What about the president who took us into war and has no plan to get us out? The president who has a measly 31 percent approval rating? Is this the same president who guided the nation in the dark days after 9/11?
The same president that cut taxes to bring an economy out of recession? Could this be the same guy who has been called every name in the book for succeeding in keeping all the spoiled ungrateful brats safe from terrorist attacks?
The commander in chief of an all-volunteer army that is out there defending you and me? Did you hear how bad the President is on the news or talk show? Did this news affect you so much, make you so unhappy you couldn’t take a look around for yourself and see all the good things and be glad?
Think about it…are you upset at the President because he actually caused you personal pain OR is it because the “Media” told you he was failing to kiss your sorry ungrateful a* every day.
Make no mistake about it. The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have volunteered to serve, and in many cases may have died for your freedom. There is currently no draft in this country. They didn’t have to go.
They are able to refuse to go and end up with either a ”general” discharge, an ”other than honorable” discharge or, worst case scenario, a ”dishonorable” discharge after a few days in the brig.
So why then the flat-out discontentment in the minds of 69 percent of Americans? Say what you want but I blame it on the media. If it bleeds it leads and they specialize in bad news. Everybody will watch a car crash with blood and guts. How many will watch kids selling lemonade at the corner? The media knows this and media outlets are for-profit corporations.
They offer what sells, and when criticized, try to defend their actions by “justifying” them in one way or another. Just ask why they tried to allow a murderer like O.J. Simpson to write a book about how he didn’t kill his wife, but if he did he would have done it this way…Insane!
Stop buying the negativism you are fed everyday by the media. Shut off the TV, burn Newsweek, and use the New York Times for the bottom of your bird cage. Then start being grateful for all we have as a country. There is exponentially more good than bad.
We are among the most blessed people on Earth and should thank God several times a day or, at least be thankful and appreciative.”
By The Phil
April 26, 2007 7:57 PM | Link to this
I’m too drunk at the moment to review all of what has been said in this blogging and the comments in said blogging … but if you are against the FairTax you must be some rich commie jerk.
By Homer
April 26, 2007 9:34 PM | Link to this
Neil has an idea. Jay don’t.
By Craig
April 26, 2007 9:41 PM | Link to this
Thanks for your courage Jay. Boortz is a bully and a coward, who wants to push his taxes on to the backs of the poor yokels who adore him and hang on his every word.
By concerned
April 26, 2007 11:25 PM | Link to this
A fair tax is impossible. FAIR TAX? You know it’s just not true.
By Kneel Boortz
April 27, 2007 3:34 AM | Link to this
Boretz does not want live in-studio guests because he is a coward and cannot bully them as he does any poor sap who calls in. do any of you Boretz-myrmidons remember what happened a few years ago when Bill Campbell was a live guest? He mopped the floor with Boretz. Flat-out ripped him a new one. A faker & hypocrite does NOT want to risk a repeat. Adolf Boortz was a draft-dodger during Viet Nam. If that doesn’t discredit him and his bilge, nothing would.
By Craig
April 27, 2007 5:46 AM | Link to this
Of course Boortz won’t allow a real debate with you Jay. When Cynthia Tucker debated him a few years ago she wiped the floor with his sorry rear end. She came with facts and logic; he showed up with a few anecdotes from “elite editorialists” like Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin.
If he allowed real debate, some of his cultish followers might wake up and realize how they are being hoodwinked.
By MP
April 27, 2007 7:41 AM | Link to this
entitlement programs are a problem, the current tax system is a problem, our government is a problem, but the solution is not to make something worse, this ‘fair’ tax, what a cute little name, kind of preemptive strike to invalidate anyone that may potentially disagree with their propaganda, ‘what, you don’t like fair? you darn pesky liberal!’ that’s the other one, I get called a liberal all the time, and I’m a centrist. doesn’t matter as long as this herd of brainwashed sheep that we have today gets their hateful verbal attack back at someone that commited the awful crime of not ALWAYS agreeing with them. that’s not America folks. and giving affluent people more big breaks isn’t either. the rich will not take care of us. trickle down does not work. make it where the rich don’t pay any taxes at all and they won’t come down onprices, sellers will always sell their stuff for what they can get for it, the best price they can get people to pay. just look at gas. if we have a broken leg, the solution is not to shoot ourselves in the foot. not get truthful and stop using all the manipulation of ‘patriot’ act, ‘intelligent design’, etc….and start calling it the ‘FareTax’
By MP
April 27, 2007 8:00 AM | Link to this
I’m so tired of hearing how these slithering politicians ‘guided us through the dark days after 911’. what the hell else did you expect them to do, their politicians, they love that kind of stuff, get to grandstand and be the face of our country during a time of tragedy. politicians eat that up. you could’ve put most any politician in the same position and they would’ve acted the same way as Guiliani and Bush, I still don’t know what they did that was so heroic, they were in elected office while it happened, but that’s not Audie Murphy type behavior. to believe in politicians is like believing in the tooth fairy. to pick a political party hurts this country, that’s where we get divided and then used and manipulated by politicians, only choose America. and to say we have all these freedoms, the last 25 years many freedoms have gone away, reading a book, searching the internet, using your phone, roadblocks, illegal search and seizure, it’s not what this country was supposed to be. and I’m not an Atheist, but when we can have an Atheist as a President of the United States, then, I will believe we have true religious freedoms. but religion isn’t about freedom, it’s about control. you don’t need religion to love God, you don’t need religion to pray to God, and God will love you just as much. and as far as taxes go, churches should be taxed like any other business, that’s a great scam, that’s why there’s one on most any corner, all claiming they were the first. people hide behind religion, thinking they can go run their soul through the mud all week and then just go in one side of the church and come out the other all cleaned up and ready for another week of treating people like crap. the soul-car wash. this is an issue churches should address, because for the last 25 years, the meanest people I have met have called themselves Christians.
By Lottie
April 27, 2007 8:18 AM | Link to this
Double-speak again. “FAIR” tax is the least fair solution to budget deficits. First, once a “fair” tax is initiated, how do we guarantee that income taxes will really stop? It’s naive to think politicians will cut any money stream. Second, does anyone seriously think political hacks will give up all those patronage jobs in the IRS and other related offices around the country? And all the corporate tax and accounting firms and lawyers? Third, will that stop pork? Don’t think so. The deficits will keep getting deeper and China will own more of the US than it already does. Sheeples —- wake up. The radio mouthpieces are playing with your brains and you’re letting them do it. Read some of the GAO literature posted on their website and see what’s really going on.
By D
April 27, 2007 8:33 AM | Link to this
exactly! politicians won’t get their hands out of the till. this is another issue they promote like abortion, flag burning, gay marriage, ten commandments… these things distract us, and keep us from focusing on more important issues, like holding our government officials truly and completely accountable for stupid things they do, and corrupt things they do. so go pick a political party and go stand by that political party no matter what they do and let’s all argue amongst ourselves instead of getting on to the people that deserve our disgust, politicians in our government. let’s all blame the media, too. our media sources need to improve but do we really think that if we could just get the info from the government and let them tell us what’s going on and what we should do, do you really think that would be better? do you really think TASS and Pravda would be better than the news media we have today? is it just that the report things that they shouldn’t have that makes them so bad, then who gets to choose the truth? which truth do we get to hear and which truth is better that they keep from us?
By Libby
April 27, 2007 9:31 AM | Link to this
this country is a great place to live, just by looking around the world, but JB’s attitude of ‘this is good enough’ is not the American slogan that got us to where we are today. saying that this is good enough and don’t point out any flaws or problems or mistakes made by the people saying this is good enough or you’re a troublemaker, a malcontent, you should be looked at by the NSA, is not America. the favorite put downs by the ones that think they know everything the same people that are running this country into the ground are: nut, fool, wimp, traitor, all reserved for anyone that disagrees with them for any reason, once again, not America. just think of the people in our history that we would have imprisoned in a gulag if we were to all tow the line as this is good enough, don’t rock the boat, people like, Mark Twain, Will Rogers, even George Carlin. our drive to makes things better and want a better life is what has helped separate us from other countries. to encourage us to all think the same way will only hurt this country, the renaissance only started after the church lossened it’s controls over science. remember too, God made science, man made the Bible.
By holdingAJCaccountable
April 27, 2007 5:37 PM | Link to this
I’m not sure why Boortz won’t have Bookman on the air. But the argument that it’s because he wants to “stack the crowd” with FairTax zealots doesn’t quite hold water, when you consider Boortz is willing to let Bookman chose the debate forum (and has even suggested some college campuses, not exactly known as hotbeds of conservatism)
Sounds like the ball is in Bookman’s court to me.