Home > Political Insider > Archives > 2007 > December > 28 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USFair Tax a “sham”
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Libertarian Senate candidate Allen Buckley, who’s running against incumbent Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) in the 2008 election, is calling the Fair Tax that Chambliss and so many other Georgia Republicans favor a “sham.”
The Fair Tax, which would replace federal income taxes with a national sales tax, is the Holy Grail of tax reform for Georgia conservatives.
The tax’s chief champion in Congress, Rep. John Linder, a Duluth Republican, has been introducing legislation to implement the Fair Tax every year since 1999 and recently co-wrote a book with radio personality Neil Boortz espousing the Fair Tax’s virtues. Chambliss, like most Republicans in the state’s congressional delegation, is a co-sponsor of Linder’s bill.
Fair Tax advocates say instituting a 23 percent national sales tax would provide the same revenue to the government as income taxes do, but give back to taxpayers more of their own income.
Buckley, a tax attorney and accountant from Smyrna who self-published his own book deriding the Fair Tax, said government studies have already shown that the tax would have to be at least double what advocates propose to deliver its promised benefits.
“Our people need to know how hard a … Fair Tax would hit retirees and the middle class,” Buckley said in a statement Friday. “While the current tax system is a complex mess, the Fair Tax proposal is not the answer.
“I hereby challenge Senator Chambliss to a thorough, evidence-oriented debate on the Fair Tax bill,” Buckley said in the statement. “If he desires, John Linder can join Mr. Chambliss.”
Comments
By A Non-Kool-Aid Drinker
December 28, 2007 2:20 PM | Link to this
The FairTax does not hold water, as more and more analyses are showing. (Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, National Review, Los Angeles Times, Bruce Bartlett, Factcheck.org — these are just a few that have recently examined the FairTax and found it wanting).
Linder would not debate his challenger in the 2006 election on the FairTax. I somehow doubt that Chambliss will either. FairTax proponents never debate ths proposal — they just like preaching to those who have already drunken the Kool-Aid.
By georgiavalues
December 28, 2007 3:05 PM | Link to this
I support the FairTax and Saxby Chambliss. This Buckley fellow should get behind the FairTax.
By Another taxpayer
December 28, 2007 3:09 PM | Link to this
Fair! Evidence-Oriented! Debate! I guess we could all pray for a day when these new-age Republicans use all four of these words in one sentence. Wait a minute! How about “We will NEVER have a Fair, Evidence-Oriented, Debate!” as an appropriate GOP response to Mr. Buckley.
By Another taxpayer
December 28, 2007 3:26 PM | Link to this
Perhaps there is a way to make this fair tax thing work. But first I need to have a few questions answered.
1) Will the Fair tax eliminate property tax?
2) If property tax were eliminated, would we then have the Fairly Great Tax?
3) If we had the Fairly Great Tax, would it be fairly great enough to make US into the fairly greatest socialist republic of all time?
4) Would we need a Healthcare Tax to cover some of the things that the Fairly Great Tax won’t cover?
5) What about an Alternative Minimum Fairly Great Tax? I’ll bet there would be debate from Mr. Saxby Chambliss on that issue.
By Charles
December 28, 2007 3:37 PM | Link to this
The only ones who would be hurt by the Fair Tax would be those who are not participating in the present tax system. That would include drug dealers, so-called ‘Reverends’, con artists, etc. There would be no more hiding of income - legal or illegal.
It’s no wonder that those who want to keep an unfair system in place are mostly the dregs of our society - including the Democrats.
By Another taxpayer
December 28, 2007 3:53 PM | Link to this
Charles,
I’m not a Democrat however I would be interested in knowing how you would propose collecting this tax from the drug dealers, con artists, etc.
Also, would you please provide me with examples of legal hiding of income.
Thank You
By Bernie
December 28, 2007 3:57 PM | Link to this
To A Non-Kool-Aid Drinker:
A newspaper editorial is not an analysis—it is an opinion piece.
Make it your first priority to learn the difference in 2008.
By Bernie
December 28, 2007 4:02 PM | Link to this
To Another:
Tax avoidance is legal. Tax evasion is illegal. Make it your priority to know the difference in 2008.
Spend less time being cute, more time educating yourself. Present yourself as being knowledgeable and most folks will be unable to detect the difference.
See www.Fairtax.org for details.
By E-Bay Mac
December 28, 2007 4:15 PM | Link to this
Remember that name folks. Its ‘E-Bay Mac’ here, about to deliver you the best Black Market deals out there. We’ll be using my own personal Alternative Minimum Tax on your Very Fair Tax purchase. Nothing Nada Zilch. A big ZERO percent tax! For you only!
Step right up and get your Tax Free computer. Whats that sir? You need a printer too? Come on down!
Junior needs new shoes? You’ve come to the right place! Always FREE SHIPPING!
By Another taxpayer
December 28, 2007 4:27 PM | Link to this
Bernie,
Quit re-phrasing to suit your interests:
1) The transaction between the drug dealer and purchaser is not taxed,
2) Ditto for other illegal activities,
3) Hiding of income is illegal
By the way, you are so cute.
By A Non-Kool-Aid Drinker
December 28, 2007 4:30 PM | Link to this
Bernie — I guess you sure showed me. You want analysis:
William Gale, May 15, 2005 ed. Tax Notes
Bruce Bartlett, current ed., Tax Notes
President’s Tax Reform Commission, vol. 9 (2006)
Joint Committee on Taxation, (1998 and 200)
Also, under the FairTax, when the drug dealer sells his drugs, his customrs don’t pay the FairTax. When he buys his cadillac, the car dealer collects the FairTax and remits it to the government.
Under our current system, when the drug dealer sells his drugs, he doesn’t pay income tax. When he buys his cadillac, the cadillac dealer pays income tax (as does the salesman, the manufacturer, etc.) That’s what the so-called “embedded tax” is.
So, there’s NO new tax paid to the government by the underground economy under the FairTax. (Of course, if you had actually read some of these analyses, you would already know that.)
By Craig
December 28, 2007 4:39 PM | Link to this
Do you honestly think Saxby has any clue about the Fair Tax? He had no clue what it was until his Primary opponent in 2002 made it his main issue. Saxby only rides the coattails of people. He’ll only debate it when Boortz and Linder are allowed to back him up.
By Mark M
December 28, 2007 6:13 PM | Link to this
Alan Greenspan, T. Boone Pickens, Nobel economist Vernon L. Smith, and over 80 U.S. economists LOVE the national consumption tax and prebate (fairtax). I’ll let them do my talkin’.
By Craig also
December 28, 2007 11:59 PM | Link to this
At least a few people are beginning to understand what a disaster this would be for the middle class.
Ironic that the Libertarian candidate is smart enough to see through the hype, while the Libertarian-in-name-only talk show blowhard is one of the main advocates. Should be interesting to watch how Mr. Buckley’s candidacy develops.
By Jim Bennett
December 29, 2007 7:10 AM | Link to this
One must remember that Buckley’s comments - that are critical of the Fair Tax - come from one who would be put out of a job by the Fair Tax. Buckley, as an attorney, has transferrable skills and would do well under the Fair Tax, but his skills should not be transferred to the United States Senate until Senator Chambliss passes the Fair Tax. ~Jim Bennett Summit, NJ
By Dewey715
December 29, 2007 8:18 AM | Link to this
Debates are great, but with a Libertarian why waste the time. They say such far out comments because they’re not living in the real world.
By Dave Corsi
December 29, 2007 9:20 AM | Link to this
If Mr Buckley is a tax attorney and accountant who relies on “government studies” to support his views, he must not be much of a Libertarian. Furthermore it appears he owes his livelihood to the current “special interests” tax system and big government types who propagate it.
By JeD
December 29, 2007 11:29 AM | Link to this
“Women, Children, and Minorities Hardest Hit”, well it looks like opponents of the FairTax proposal want to add “poor and middle class”.
Certain presidential candidates keep claiming that they are among the most wealthy in the nation, not that their rubbing it in - it just feel that way to us poor middle class people, and that they should be taxed more, along with the vast majority of ueber wealthy who don’t want more taxes. Here’s the real deal, the top 1% of money makers in the USA don’t pay income tax - at all - or in very small amounts. That is why the Alternative Minimum Tax was created, to cath 20, yes just twenty - it is now set to catch 20 Million people, of these people who get all of their very expensive livelihoods taken care of by their corporations and other businesses while money piles up in their stock portfolios, they get no salary and so pay no income tax. Sure let’s raise normal type taxes on people who don’t actually pay them. That plan doesn’t work for me. Never mind the fact that every time taxes are cut on the wealthiest of us in the US everyone benefits from them spending more money in stores that need services and materials from the rest of us. Yes, trickle down economics is real and it really benefits you indirectly, whether you understand it or not, just like gravity. the FairTax would unleash this group in a way that our ecomomy hasn’t seen since federal income tax was created many deacades ago.
As for the poor and middle class being hit by FairTax, ONLY those who refuse to do the research would continue to say something so opposite to the truth. FairTax gives back to every USA citizen a monthly check equivalent to the amount of tax that would be paid on all items at the poverty level. Please read that again. Let it sink in and churn over about what that would mean to someone at the poverty level. It means 0% tax. If you are making twice the poverty level, it means that you pay 0$ tax on the first 1/2 of your spending for mandatory new items like food and rent, and regular tax on the second half, if you buy new. There is no tax on used items, cars, houses, second time sales means 0% tax. This also means that the very wealthy person buying the very expensive new item will pay the very biggest taxes.
That does not mean that prices will be much if any higher, because FairTax would eliminate all federal taxes. If it is a federal tax, it goes to zero. If it is a state or local tax, that is a separate issue. Here is a piece of info you must remember when looking at coporate taxes. Corporations don’t pay taxes, they consider taxes a side cost of producing their product or service and add them into the price they charge to YOU the consumer. You pay all of those behind the scenes taxes for the corporations. Therefore, raising taxes on corporations is equivalent to shooting a hole in your car tire. Your own foot doesn’t feel the pain, until you realize that now you have to walk. Once all of the federal corporate taxes go to zero, the competitive market place will only need one company to drop prices to reflect the missing backdoor taxes in order to cause all of the other companies to do so. Suddently, all prices on most products will be much lower, add the FairTax to the top - right in front of you where you can see it - and prices are just about where they used to be, except that you the consumer can now SEE the tax you are paying. And you pay it with non-taxed dollars, instead of using our current system of already taxed dollars to pay hidden taxed prices.
Lastly, let me deal with property taxes. Property tax is not a federal tax. It is a state or local tax, in most cases. Once the FairTax proposal is passed and people every where are seeing the benefits of it, “Why didn’t someone think of this sooner?”, then FairTax can be implemented at the state and local level. That would in fact eliminate proper tax. It would in fact remove the government’s ability to take your home away from you. There are many senior citizens in this country losing their ability to keep their houses because of property taxes and fixed incomes. How much more unAmerican a system is there than one that allows hard working people to pay for their own property, true property - land and a house, and then levy such high taxes that the state takes the house for back taxes, litterly running people out of town. Look around at the demographics of the Northeastern states. The average age is dropping like a rock. Conversely, the average age of towns in the South and Southwest is shooting upward. Passing FairTax at the state and local level would make selling your property after retirement age a personal choice, not a forced requirement. It would give more balance to many communities that could benefit from the wisdom many older people have to offer. Yes, they would benefit greatly from FairTax. We would all benefit greatly from passing the FairTax.
So, if you want to debate the FairTax, be sure you’ve actually read all of the research first. Stop wasting everyone’s time spouting opinions and questions that clearly show you haven’t read any of it. The FairTax plan is the greatest finanicial boon to the USA possible, at a time when we could sorely use it. And best of all, it forces the true cost of the federal government out into the open where we can all see it every day. How much support would a congress member get for proposing to raise the National Consumption Tax that everyone can see on every purchase? There is the real battle. That right there is enough reason to pass the FairTax.
Go do the research, get your questions answered with the truth, not your buddy’s opinions, or your own personal council. Get the facts. FairTax.org
By Jack
December 29, 2007 7:19 PM | Link to this
Looks like this isn’t the only thing Georgia Republicans need to worry about:
http://acropolisreview.com/2007/11/republican-congressional-delegation-on.html
By FAIRTAXBILL
December 29, 2007 11:52 PM | Link to this
Go Chambliss! Go FairTax! Both would be a great step forward for all Americans and the American economy. The opinion of a Chartered Financial Consultant in retirement!
By Another taxpayer
December 30, 2007 7:55 AM | Link to this
A tax is a tax — no matter the name given it. What if it were called the UnFair Tax? What would be your thoughts? This so-called “Fair Tax” is revenue neutral according to its supporters. So, it’s going to collect the same amount from the same group of people. Poverty level people will pay the same as before as long as they stay in poverty. Middle class people will be no better off. They may even be able to find a loophole to save a buck if they’re careful. They’ll just have to avoid buying anything new and learn how to avoid doctors, dentists, hospitals, drug stores, etc. I wonder if the “rich” people will set up thrift stores for the middle class so we can buy their used stuff tax free. Maybe they’ll even have some used medicine to share tax free. I can’t wait to buy one of their used multi-million dollar mansions tax free. How about a slightly used Bentley tax free. What about a used loan tax free. The possibilities are just staggering! To think that there is no market for Bill Clinton’s used underwear! It’ll be TAX-FREE!
By Craig
December 30, 2007 9:20 AM | Link to this
“Revenue neutral” is the key. Boortz wants it ‘cause he knows he will pay less. For him to do that, someone else has to pay more. Who do you suppose that will be? Drug dealers? Yeah right.
Sorry all you Kool-aid drinkers, but if you’re in the middle class, you WILL pay higher taxes under this plan. Thanks, but no thanks.
By Robert F. Liker
December 30, 2007 11:26 AM | Link to this
I respectfully suggest that you would do well to get correct facts and speak to Americans for Fair Taxation or visit www.FairTax.org so that you can understand what the Fair Tax is and what it does not do. I also suggest you not continue to write articles that are false, misleading and erroneous comments of the Fair Tax.
By Ken Hoagland
December 30, 2007 12:22 PM | Link to this
As the FairTax idea gains momentum, the “long knives” have come out by those with an investment in the income tax system. They are throwing the kitchen sink at the idea but those who know the research behind the FairTax see through these red herrings and are rallying in ever greater numbers.
Campiagns wanting to slow Huck; lobbyists like Bruce Bartlett wanting to save their lucrative roles in tax policy; academicians who have built entire careers on understanding and suggesting changes to the indecipherable tax code; “authors” who believe they have found a contrarian path to fame and, finally, Members of Congress who are addicted to the power of favors, punishments and citizen manipulation through the tax code, all have strong motivations to distort the idea. No matter to them that their narrow gain saddles the nation with a tax system defined by greed, hidden taxes, 67,500 pages of complexity and elements that are killing off the “Made in America” label.
Too late! The FairTax idea is powerfully resonating now because, while not perfect (what tax system is?), it is 1000 times better than the current system and corrects many national economy and taxpayer problems caused by the tax code.
Without listing everything wrong with the income tax system, consider this: It costs America $265 Billion a year to obey our income tax laws. Any creation of our own government that is so expensive and difficult to obey—and which introduces so many destructive problems—SHOULD invite citizen loathing and inspire new ideas for better ways to collect federal revenues.
The many distortions of this well-researched alternative are simply a measure of how much Washington has to lose in ending the income tax system. But are the 30,000-40,000 people profiting from the income tax system really a good reason to keep such a destructive, unfair and expensive monstrosity? No—and the American public is waking up to realize that in this country, especially, we public policy victims of this wound on our economy (and peace of mind) have the power to change things—despite the howls of indignation now coming from the political elite who have promised change for so long without ever meaning it.
By John Paul McDaniel
December 30, 2007 4:50 PM | Link to this
It is in IGNORANCE!! that one claims that the Fair Tax will drive up the cost of living……….for ANYONE!!!.
PLEASE CONSIDER THIS:
22% of the price of all that you buy currently is tax / tax compliance cost. When that cost goes away (under the Fair Tax) the price of your $1.00 item (purchased at Wal-Mart, for example) drops in price to 78 cents (without damaging the profit margin). The same will be true of all retail pricing.
You need to “do the math” correctly.
1.23 X 78 cents = 96 cents.
Seeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!! Even with the 23% Fair Tax added on, your originally $1.00 item is now 4 cents cheaper.
The “out-of-pocket” cost of living , under the Fair Tax , will be no more than it is now.
Under the Fair Tax there are NO LOSERS, only winners, the difference being that some win BIGGER!!!! than others due to their increased FRUGALITY.
Please EDUCATE!! yourself on the Fair Tax issue.
Best Regards, John Paul McDaniel
For the education you need………………………………………………………………………… Go to: www.fairtax.org
By Another taxpayer
December 30, 2007 4:50 PM | Link to this
I invite any and all elected officials to present their efforts to reduce the tax burden.
I could care less about whether you call a tax an income tax, property tax, ad valorem tax, gas tax, road tax, excise tax, death tax, tax on tax, fair tax, great tax or I ran out of names tax.
BIG DEAL.
Here’s an idea: Send Congress home for four years without pay or benefits and put all the money we will save into an interest bearing savings account. The wars, health care, etc., will be easily funded without touching the principal.
Here’s another one for you: I think we should tax all monies associated with campaigns at 50% — and that could be either inclusive or exclusive, I don’t care. Just tax all contributions, salaries to campaign workers, advertisements, PACs, etc. Now thats a spicy meat-a-ball!
By Another taxpayer
December 30, 2007 5:42 PM | Link to this
Some people like to play games with Math. So, let’s play a game:
Suppose I earn $30k/yr and I save my money to buy a house with a hefty down payment. Say I buy a $100k house with $20k down. So, I finance $80k for 40 years at a fixed rate of 6.25% with interest only for the first 10 years. I’m single, so my standard deduction would be $5150 and my standard exemption is $3300. Now, my income is taxed at 10% for the first $7550 and 15% for the rest. To make the math easy, let’s assume that I bought the house on December 31 so there is no interest to worry about deducting the first year. Oh yes, did I mention that the house is NEW. Now, let’s just skip ahead and do the Fair tax on the NEW house. That’s $23k. Of course with the Fair tax I get (what is that poverty level number for a single guy living in a cardboard box) lets say $16k. Now subtract $16k from $23k and I’m in the hole for $7k in consumption tax on the house without spending anything else for the year. So, my tax just for the house is 7/30 x 100 or 23% of my income that year. If I could have just found a good used house where I wanted to live. Wait a minute!! Light bulb!! I could be steered toward buying that used house in that place that I don’t want to live or work or play if the numbers work out right. That Herd mentality thing really does work. Get it — steered and herd. Of course those fair tax advocates already have answers to all the scenarios I could possibly come up with. So, why bother. Moooooooo.
By Another taxpayer
December 31, 2007 8:04 AM | Link to this
I have got to get into the market for used stuff just in case this fairly great tax thing catches on. I’ve already got some used land so all I need to do now is start covering it up with used stuff. Years ago they called these places eyesores — junkyards that is. Now they’ll be referred to as virtual cornucopias of used but tax-free merchandise and other assorted sundries. Why there’ll be stacks of used shingles, windows, doors, hub caps, electrical wiring (with only slightly degraded insulation), polybutylene pipe, and so on and so forth. Then there’ll be the all used up installers to get for no tax to install this used stuff. We’ll have the used electricians, used plumbers, used carpenters, used dentists, used doctors, and so on and so forth. Finally, I’ll need to put up a used sign detailing the tax savings one can obtain by using the used installers to install the used stuff from my used storage facility.
That’s all for now — I feel all used up.
By Anonymous
December 31, 2007 8:34 AM | Link to this
And the preaching continues… Faithful FairTax Followers(TM) insist that anybody who criticizes or disagrees with the FairTax can’t POSSIBLY understand it or has to lie about it, because it’s “just sooo perfect in every way!”
Legitimate criticism is not possible, you see. God has spoken, and his command is: The FairTax!
By Craig also
December 31, 2007 9:28 AM | Link to this
It’s like a cult. Boortz is the messianic high priest, leading them all to Nirvana. His book is the infallible truth. And if you dare to point out all the logical fallacies, you’re evil, or worse - shudder - a “liberal”.
By Paul Burgener
January 1, 2008 9:49 AM | Link to this
So you’re saying the “30 before/23 after” rate isn’t high enough? Give us a number and we’ll run with it. Lets get it done, whatever the number is, before the number reaches 100/50 percent. Better we start with an overly high rate, than let it wait another year! Anyone who slows down the FairTax process is anti-American economy.
By Paul Burgener
January 1, 2008 9:49 AM | Link to this
So you’re saying the “30 before/23 after” rate isn’t high enough? Give us a number and we’ll run with it. Lets get it done, whatever the number is, before the number reaches 100/50 percent. Better we start with an overly high rate, than let it wait another year! Anyone who slows down the FairTax process is anti-American economy.
By Dan Alston
January 1, 2008 12:36 PM | Link to this
I have read many good defenses of the Fair Tax and most of the critics seem to have been misinformed about one aspect or another or they are emphasizing an aspect that is good (no taxes on used) and taking it to what is to me an illogical extreme. Any great change will always have a lot of emotion on it and I leave that to others. Here is an aspect of the Fair Tax that I have not seen in print but it is tremendously important. All current government programs penalize Citizens for trying to improve their situations. They are means tested so that when (heaven forbid) a Citizen starts improving their situation, the assistance stops and an artificial barrier hits them just when they can’t afford it. Their benefits stop at the point that they would do the most good at helping them improve. The situation of someone not wanting to make more income because they jump a bracket, hit AMT, etc and just loose it all to taxes is one example. What happens to Social Security Benefits if you, (heaven forbid) continue being productive and earn more money, or welfare benefits that disappear if you try to improve your financial situation, every means tested government program that professes to be there to help the disadvantaged in actuality penalizes them for improving. The Fair Tax gives a prebate to every legal Citizen. The prebate is not rewarding you for something undesirable like being poor, it is rewarding you because you are doing the correct thing as far as being an American Citizen. If you want to stay poor there is no penalty. If you want to improve yourself, there is no penalty. IT IS UP TO THE INDIVIDUAL HOW THEY LIVE THEIR LIFE. The prebate increases every Citizens income (via the Social Security Administration I believe) by the amount of Sales tax that they would see on their income up to the poverty level. At the current government defined level that will cover the expenses for necessities of life. When a poor person improves their situation and they start making more money, the prebate remains. No penalty for improving. If they save the money, no tax either. The Citizen is in charge of their own finances. A basic freedom we gave away when we let the Income Tax occur. In addition, the poor will be paying less for their basics according to all the research. It is good research by respected economists who don’t have an agenda other than what is best for American Citizens. It is available at fairtax.org for you to read for yourself. With the imbeded cost because of current federal taxes on business offsetting the Fair Tax,the prices will stay about the same but a poor person has additional income by the amount of the prebate so more spending power, even in government defined poverty. When this artificial barrier to joining the middle class is removed more Citizens will be able to move up. We know what the retail spending in this country is. It will go up when people have more of their own money to spend. The facts are that a huge amount of the current spending is done with untaxed dollars. However the money was earned, crime, underground economy, foreign money, tax shelter spending of the ultra rich, the amount is staggering and will provide the funds to replace what was eliminated. The base supporting the government becomes everyone not just us schmucks that obey the law and work for a living. The Fair Tax improves the economic situation for law abiding Americans and they are the ones we should be concerned about.
By Anonymous
January 1, 2008 1:11 PM | Link to this
And the fact that it would shield a good 90% of the wealth of the very richest fragment of Americans is just a coincidence, I’m sure.
Yes, this switch to a regressive consumption tax is “in the best interests of the poor,” all right. Finally, their stock options and real estate holdings will be free of that horrible tax burden! Sheesh, how transparent can you get?
By Another taxpayer
January 1, 2008 6:11 PM | Link to this
Some people just cannot do math. Plain simple math. You don’t need to understand partial differential equations or even plain old grade school algebra. You do need to understand how you are currently taxed (for the Federal income tax) and how you will be taxed under the “Fair” Tax and what items will be taxed. Perhaps that is where these “Fair” Tax advocates are lacking. These are probably the same people you can see spending their entire paycheck on Lottery tickets. I suppose they either never learned about probability or they work in a fast food joint and don’t have to be concerned about where their next meal will come from.
By Kilborn
January 2, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this
1) Will the Fair tax eliminate property tax?
No - property taxes are state and community based. FairTax only applies to Federal taxes.
The rest of the questions here were non-sensical.
By Joe S
January 2, 2008 12:36 PM | Link to this
The obvious reason why Mr. Buckley does not support the FairTax is his occupation and most likely, his biggest supporters/contributors to his campaign…..tax attorneys and accountants. These two professions would be hit hard by the implementation of the FairTax! He is just supporting what his special interest contributors want him to support. It’s the money talking! And this is exactly why the FairTax NEEDS to be implemented. It would remove the special interests from the equation and put more emphasis on the general constituency.
By Anonymous
January 2, 2008 1:25 PM | Link to this
Thanks for reminding us, Joe. I left out the OTHER most common reaction to criticisms of the sacred FairTax dogma: “Blame the messenger.”
After all, since legitimate criticism or disagreement is impossible, anyone who questions the sacred FairTax MUST be corrupt. Or insane. Or stupid. Right?
Chant along with Boortz, everyone: “FairTax, FairTax, two and two is twenty!”
By Another taxpayer
January 2, 2008 5:08 PM | Link to this
These supporters of the so-labeled “Fair” Tax are like a pack of zombies. Zombies are a new brand of smokes I just dreamed up — they come 20 to a pack. They’re really cheap because they contain nothing but hot air. All these supporters come back with the same boring lines — go to fairtax.org; you too can learn the way of the enlightened. Not a single one of these supporters offers anything real and tangible. How about sharing calculations from your own income and expenses that confirm your claims about this “Fair” Tax? Come on. Show us that you actually know how to add, subtract, multiply, divide, calculate percentages, figure out how much money your parents gave you for allowance, figure out how much your smokes cost for one year, sum up how much you spent on renting that bedroom from your parents…..
You know, if you collect those butts and smoke them, you won’t have to pay any taxes on your smokes. I might just start growing tobacco and giving the stuff away — the “Fair” tax on $0 is $0 x 0.23 = $0.
By Another taxpayer
January 2, 2008 6:01 PM | Link to this
I decided to do some more fact checking into the claims made by these so-called “Fair” Tax supporters.
To start with, I went by the grocery store and asked to talk to the owner. I asked him how much he would lower his prices if we changed over to the Fair Tax system. I waited for a good hour for him to answer me but he wouldn’t stop laughing. That was just rude of him to not let me in on the joke.
Anyway, I finally gave up on the grocer and went to lunch. While I was at the burger store, I asked the manager if I could get a 20% discount if we were paying the Fair Tax. She looked at me for a few minutes and finally said that I could get a 5% discount since I looked old enough to be a senior citizen. Otherwise, I would have to wait until Thursday and I could get a 50% discount because that’s when they have their 2-for-1 special. I thanked her and said I’d just settle for the 5% discount. I didn’t even think about asking about their used food until after I left. No, it’s not for me. My dogs could sure use some cheaper food if I have to start paying 23% extra for a bag of Giblets and Bits.
That’s all for now. Tomorrow I’m off to the trash dump. I need to find out if stuff going in and out are both considered used — and therefore not subject to the 23% tax.
By Ryan
January 3, 2008 10:53 AM | Link to this
Anonymous and Another,
You assert that the evil-rich will benefit the greatest from the FairTax while ignoring the fact that the highest earners are the biggest spenders and will (as under the current system) be paying the overwhelming majority of the tax burden. Earners who are at or below the poverty line in this country are not the ones who are going to be buying hi-def plasma TV’s, new sports cars, and large homes or at least they shouldn’t be. Imagine… a tax system that PROMOTES good spending habits and fiscal responsibility.
I found this humorous from Anonymous amusing: “..don’t need to understand partial differential equations or even plain old grade school algebra. You do need to understand how you are currently taxed…” I’m an double engineering major (still a student) at Tech. I’ve taken accounting. I have no clue how I am currently taxed (been working for years now and have done my own taxes a number of times). The IRS will even give you different answers on how much you should be paying should you ask. To say you understand (even only your own situation) completely would make you one of the best tax attorneys in the country. Again, enter the the Fair Tax.
I’m not operating under the delusion that this is a perfect system or a gift from god or any of that non-sense. I expect prices to rise or pay to be cut or some other balance factor… so that in a purely source vs. sink manner, it is revenue neutral. I could not even begin to predict the impact said system would have socioeconomically. I do trust that the Harvard study and associated research is the most credible study I’ve seen and in the end it endorses the Fair Tax. I expect black market goods to be more prominent, and yet realize that auditing 5% of business to secure 95% of taxes is much easier than auditing 100 million Americans.
In closing… the most intelligent arguments I been in are the product of both sides seeing merit in the other. I don’t think Anonymous and Another have the honesty to participate in such a manner.
By Ryan
January 3, 2008 11:08 AM | Link to this
Substitute “humorous” with “post” in that last one. Neither to I claim to be literate.
By Craig also
January 3, 2008 12:18 PM | Link to this
Ryan you seem like a smart guy - I don’t think that any opponent of the consumption tax talks about “evil” rich people. Please don’t just parrot Boortz.
Do the math yourself. If you spend most of what you make, multiply your income by 30%, and compare that amount with what you’re paying currently for income and FICA taxes. I’ve done that, and I will be worse off if this thing passes. Most of the people who so fervently post here for the consumption tax will be worse off.
And that brings me to your last comment about Anonymous and Another - when you’ve debated the consumption tax True Believers long enough, you soon learn that - unlike you - most of them haven’t really done any research. All they’ve done is listen to the pretty words from their Dear Leader. And anyone who is opposed to it is a liar, or dishonest, or a “liberal”, or hates rich people, or whatever.
Good luck with your studies.
By Anonymous
January 3, 2008 12:34 PM | Link to this
That’s because a consumption tax is inherently regressive, Craig—as any economist already knows. They just don’t mind because it comes close to an “efficient marketplace,” which apparently matters more to them than actual quality of life for our society.
And I appreciate the black-or-white thinking that often crops up in discussions with FairTaxers; in logic, it’s called the “False Dichotomy” fallacy. It usually takes the form of “Oh, and the current tax system is perfect, huh? I guess you’re thrilled with a 50,000 page tax code and special tricks and loopholes that let some folks pay nothing while you get screwed…”
As if there were only two alternatives—the FairTax or the current system, period. Pure silliness, like most of the FairTaxers’ hysterical claims and anti-government ravings.
I wouldn’t mind intelligent debate on a better tax system—but to have that, you have to shuffle the FairTax Fanatics(TM) offstage first.
By Another taxpayer
January 3, 2008 2:18 PM | Link to this
Dear Ryan,
Thank you for sharing a little bit about yourself. For that, I will reciprocate accordingly. I have an MS from Ga.Tech, Bachelors from Ga. Tech., a Bachelors from Southern Tech, and 20 years engineering experience. I have found over the years that credit cards — which I use like checking accounts — along with a program such as Quicken allow one to rather quickly sum up one’s categorized expenses, for example. It doesn’t require much effort after that to look at the so-called “What If” scenarios.
By Ryan
January 3, 2008 5:34 PM | Link to this
I am certainly no economist, so take my analysis with a grain of salt (and consideration) but on the widest system level, if the government is receiving the same amount of cash (using a sort of flux/conservation of mass/money principle) should not the same amount be available to the consumer/taxpayer? That is the point of a revenue neutral system, yes? The reason I evaluate it on those terms is that I’ve read so many differing views on the distribution and transfer of money (ie wage increase/decrease vs. price increase/decrease vs. tax rate etc) that it seems to make the most sense. Then on the private/consumer end you add the $500 bill/yr cost of compliance (I quote the FairTax book, not the Harvard study) and then we the consumers actually do benefit.
In that sense I think lopping off 30% of wages is presumptuous and asserting that quality of life will diminish as a result is VERY presumptuous. We know in the end what the amounts have to be and there will be some some combination of wage/price increase/decrease that will make the math work. I do not promote the Fair Tax because I think I’m going to get a fatter check or cheaper goods either. In fact neither of those are principles of fundamental tax reform as some of the “FairTax Fanatics(TM)” may believe.
The concept of a progress/regressive tax system, the role of government and such borders the philosophical and certainly not a realm for this thread. Personally I identify more with the Ayn Rand school of thought on such matters.
Another, the only reason for mentioning the education is to point out that I’ve taken (and struggled) with things like diff. equations, but nothing compares with my struggle with the IRS. Engineering helps little in matters of economics. Sorry to elicit a bitter response.
I’m in this purely for the simplicity, transparency and (in most cases but I don’t feel like arguing this one) fairness.
Lastly, the evil-rich references was in response to the tone of this thread not the parroting of some talk show host (not a Boortz fan by any means). Would anybody else care to argue why the wealthiest in this country should be burdened the least? I’m spent. Thanks for the dialogue.
By Another taxpayer
January 3, 2008 6:04 PM | Link to this
I’ll start by para-phrasing one of my professors from years past: The math is the easy part; It’s the assumptions that will get you.
There lies the underlying problem with most problems: You ultimately have to make assumptions in order to complete the analysis and those assumptions are at best educated guesses. For, if we had all the answers, we would not have to make the assumptions in the first place.
Take the current tax code and just ask yourself why it is what it is. Do you honestly think that it started out as a 50,000 page monstrosity? Do you think that anyone wants it to be so complex?
The alternative minimum tax portion was added to try to collect tax from a few wealthy individuals that had managed to find loopholes and avoid paying taxes. Now look at it. It just adds to the mess. Why?
Have you heard of the “Law of unintended consequences”, Murphy’s Law or the Parable of the Broken Window? The bottom line is that we try to do the “right” thing but we have our faults and we have others who try to do the “wrong” thing and we end up with what we have. Will the Fair Tax fix it? NO! Will it change things? YES. If implemented, it will initially create a ripple like the drop of water hitting the still surface of the pond. Then, there will be the backlash such as occurs when the ripples hit the walls of the pond. Afterwards, waves of new paperwork will tend to cancel each other out until an unsteady equilibrium is achieved — waiting for the next drop to fall.
By Another taxpayer
January 3, 2008 6:50 PM | Link to this
Anyway, I can’t convince myself that any given group of economists are any more right (or wrong) than any other group. What we have now is a huge mess but it is a huge mess with a semi-known output — you know the black box thing where you know the input and output and you may or may not care about all the gory details in the middle. Besides, if Greenspan, Bernanke, and a whole bunch of economists could not predict the real estate mess, I don’t have much faith in any other economist’s “Trust Me” claim.
Further, if you cut through the political smoke and mirrors, the tax shouldn’t even be the talking point. The first step in any proposal to change what we have should be to examine what we currently spend our money on versus what we need to spend it on, how efficiently we are spending the money, and ways to improve on what we have based on a thorough analysis.
By KISS
January 3, 2008 6:52 PM | Link to this
The first principle of engineering is “keep it simple, stupid”.
No matter how intelligent you believe yourself to be, if you create a ruleset, someone else will come along and teach any moron who wants to know, how to dance around the edges with impunity.
The fraudulently titled “Fair Tax” is an unnecessary step in the needed reform of federal interference in our economy. The people simply need to call an Article V Constitutional Convention.
Abolish the 16th amendment.
You remember, that’s the one that legalized the income tax way back in 1916, under Woodrow Wilson.It was passed by Congress in 1913, and then ratified by three-fourths of the states three years later. If I remember correctly, the original top marginal tax- rate was something like 2%. Think of that.
So, if the 16th amendment were repealed, I’m ready to deal on a consumption tax. But that’s the only way I’d go there.
By Another taxpayer
January 3, 2008 7:09 PM | Link to this
KISS, you got my vote. Let’s see. How do we get that un-ratification process started?
I’d love to see the politicians coming door to door when they want money for something. I can see it now:
Please Sir. May I have some more porridge, Sir?
By Bill Stewart
January 3, 2008 7:27 PM | Link to this
National Sales Tax is UNfair to retired people, like all those Boomers I’ve spent all my life having to pay taxes on the money I earn, so what I’ve got saved when I retire will have already been taxed once - and the National Sales Tax proponents want to tax it all again when I spend it. If the sales tax has any chance of being revenue-neutral, it’s because it’ll have 20-30 years of double-taxing us boomers if we ever get to retire. It’s extra-tough on those of us who live in overpriced housing markets like California and New York (and maybe Atlanta?) because nobody’s going to want to pay an extra 23% tax on our houses when we sell them - so that’ll trash the price of houses, and anybody whose house hasn’t appreciated by 30% since they bought it loses money (and if they made any profit, they’ll get taxed again when they spend it.)
There are lots of things wrong with the income tax, and a sales tax helps some things but breaks others, and there’s no way that the Federal government will be willing to take the political and economic shock of a flash-cut, so in reality we’d end up with a worst-of-both hybrid system that has both sales and income taxes.
(Think Congress has enough guts to do it, even if they did think a National Sales Tax was Fair? Not only has Bush been unwilling to acknowledge that borrowing huge quantities of money to fund the war while not cutting other spending has economic consequences, and not only have any fiscal conservatives left in the Republican Party not been successfully vocal while he’s done it, but after the Democrats got elected they haven’t had the guts to talk about the costs of his programs, and they haven’t traditionally been the party of fiscal responsibility when they’ve been in power either.)
By Brian Pearson
January 3, 2008 8:45 PM | Link to this
I would think this exchange was really funny if it weren’t so sad. Why don’t people who are so skeptical just get the straight poop on the FairTax instead of listening to windbags like Bartlett who’ve already been refuted several times?
By Overseas Employed
January 4, 2008 6:57 AM | Link to this
To All: I’ve fixed the tax problem. I work for a foreign company in a foreign country and pay NO income taxes at all. The ONLY taxes I pay is consumption taxes when I come home on vacation. If I had to pay upto the amount exampled by the FairTax I would still have plenty of my pay left and I don’t make that much. There are a lot of people coming over here to make money based on the tax exempt policy set forth by the IRS (Pub 56)and they reailize it’s better to stay over here and work because you keep all you make. For all of those nay-sayers, get a job overseas and try it for one year. You’ll see. I did.
By yaha
January 4, 2008 12:38 PM | Link to this
What people keep forgetting is the prebate. The Fair Tax is NOT regressive.
Every American would receive a check each month for the same amount, approximately $200, to offset the cost of the sales tax. Retirees, minorities, etc. would NOT be hurt.
Who WOULD be hurt: illegal immigrants, drug dealers (who love to go shopping and buy new goods and services as much as anybody else), our competitors overseas, and CHURCHES.
Yep! CHURCHES would now have to pay their fair share. Just think of that!
So this will definitely not hurt the poor; it will be a bonanza for the poor. But everybody will get the prebate, no matter how poor or rich you are, so long as you are an American citizen.
By Robert
January 4, 2008 2:56 PM | Link to this
It’s obvious to me that Anonymous and Another Taxpayer are washington lobbyists getting rich on the current income tax. They are just protecting thier in livelihood with this smokescreen of inaccurate and confusing comments.
By Robert
January 4, 2008 3:20 PM | Link to this
*By Craig also
Do the math yourself. If you spend most of what you make, multiply your income by 30%, and compare that amount with what you’re paying currently for income and FICA taxes.*
Craig, the FairTax rate is 23%.
By taxed2max
January 4, 2008 3:20 PM | Link to this
If someone has money in a savings account that they already paid income taxes on when earned (before fair tax ).They decide to buy a new washing machine, under the fair tax they would have to pay approx. 23% tax . Isn’t that like being double taxed ?
By Craig also
January 4, 2008 4:00 PM | Link to this
Yaha if your figures are right - that’s an annual outlay of over $720 billion - which would be a HUGE entitlement. Another reason not to support it.
And Robert, no, if you buy a product for a dollar, you will pay an additional 30 cents in tax. The supporters of this are scamming you by telling you that that works out to only 23% - but it’s a 30 cent tax on every dollar you spend.
By Robert
January 4, 2008 4:24 PM | Link to this
By Craig also
And Robert, no, if you buy a product for a dollar, you will pay an additional 30 cents in tax. The supporters of this are scamming you by telling you that that works out to only 23% - but it’s a 30 cent tax on every dollar you spend.
Craig you are correct that when figured in an exclusive manner it is 30 cents on every dollar spent. But earlier you said “Take your current income and multiply it by 30%”. That is an inclusive calculation, and in that case the correct rate is 23%.
You have to compare apples to apples, and that is the way the current income tax is calculated. It is important for people to understand the difference between an inclusive and exclusive calculation.
If you figure that you spend $1 at the store, including tax (the way income tax is already calculated) then 23 cents of that will be tax.
By Robert
January 4, 2008 4:38 PM | Link to this
taxed2max it is an unfortunate reality, but any conversion will always have ragged edges.
Do you think that seniors want to hurt thier children and grandchildren by holding them in a destructive tax system all because it will cause them a little difficulty?
By Another taxpayer
January 4, 2008 4:58 PM | Link to this
Robert,
If I were a Washington lobbyist, I’d be in Washington lobbying. Instead, I’m just an average middle class “joe” trying to keep a little bit of what I worked so hard for over the years. Unfortunately, during my peak earning years, misinformed people such as yourself elected the likes of Bill Clinton and forced me to pay more in taxes than many people made before taxes. Now, misinformed people such as yourself want to continue that proud tradition into my retirement years by implementing higher taxes through a consumption tax since my meager pension no longer provides you with the revenue stream you have grown so accustomed to.
You bore me with your ignorance.
By Robert
January 4, 2008 5:19 PM | Link to this
Another Taxpayer, you shouldn’t talk about ignorance when yours is so obvious.
First, I didn’t elect Clinton. I voted Perot that year. I hate higher taxes. Unfortunately both parties are tending toward tax/spend. That is why I’m a Libertarian. Libertarians believe in small gov and personal responsibility.
Second, I admit that if you are in retirement age, then the FairTax is not going to be as good for you as it is for the working person, due to the fact that you will be double taxed.
265$ billion is spent yearly preparing tax returns, and that is running business out of this country, and to other countries. Enacting the FairTax with put that money back in our pockets, as well as attract business back to our country, and pull billions of dollars of offshore money back home.
We have to get out of this bog called the income tax so that this country can be great again. Otherwise we will just sink, and disappear.
You must be childless, otherwise you would give a thought to upcoming generations, rather than just thinking of yourself.
By Dennis Madden
January 4, 2008 5:31 PM | Link to this
What a stroke of luck to not have MR. Buckley as my tax attorney. It is obvious he is more interested in scamming his clients to fill his coffers than to admit there is a better way. The Fair Tax has been studied by better brains than Mr. Buckley and proved by many studies including L.J. Kotlikoff of Boston U. it will fund the Fed Govt as is.
By Robert
January 4, 2008 6:06 PM | Link to this
As far as double taxing of senior, there is strong evidence that that will not happen anyway.
Once the embedded taxes have been removed from goods, market forces will force prices to drop appr 22%. Then add the 23% tax back in and prices are about the same. Not to mention that any purchase of used good is tax free.
Considering this, we are all (including seniors) better off with the FairTax.
By Another taxpayer
January 4, 2008 6:44 PM | Link to this
Robert,
You are the [boring] scam. At least that’s what my daughter tells me. Obviously, if you had read and understood my previous entry, you would have noticed that I did not state whom you voted for. Further, since you know nothing of me as evidenced by your false claims regarding my employment, my child, etc., my claim regarding your ignorance has a basis.
Where do you come up with these lines:
“As far as double taxing of senior, there is strong evidence that that will not happen anyway.”
“Considering this, we are all (including seniors) better off with the FairTax.”
“Second, I admit that if you are in retirement age, then the FairTax is not going to be as good for you as it is for the working person, due to the fact that you will be double taxed.”
“You must be childless, otherwise you would give a thought to upcoming generations, rather than just thinking of yourself.”
Robert, I am ignorant on many subjects. However, I find myself least ignorant of myself.
By Robert
January 4, 2008 8:56 PM | Link to this
Another taxpayer, I can only guess at who you are based on your comments in this venue. I read them all, and from the level of inaccuracy and misleading comments I had to conclude that you had something to gain. Then you mentioned that your concern was the double taxing of your savings. When that is your concern, and not the wellfair of younger people, I can only assume that you have no children.
I am sorry for any misstatements I have made.
However the statements I have made about the FairTax are accurate, and yours are not. And you call me a scam? What is that all about? You think I’m insincere about my belief in the FairTax? You think I’m trying to make money off the American people through the FairTax? How could someone do that? We know that Washington lobbyists make millions of dollars off of gaming the current income tax to the advantage of thier clients and detriment of the American people, but how can someone make money off of the FairTax. The only thing I have to gain from promoting the FairTax is the good of the American people, including you and your family.
By Brian Pearson
January 4, 2008 10:22 PM | Link to this
Taxes are not ‘higher’ under the FairTax. You have to understand that all embedded taxes in the current system, disappear. This is what makes the FairTax, revenue neutral.
The prebate is what makes the FairTax progressive, vs our current regressive withholding.
The tax base of the FairTax is much broader, because it includes the underground economy — the size of which is estimated to be between $1 trillion and $3 trillion. We may actually be able to have surpluses which can save SS and Medicare.
The economy would grow, too. And, the more it grows, the more people will save and spend, which leads to more going to the government as taxes.
Also, there currently are trillions of dollars now in sheltered, offshore accounts. What do you suppose would be the impact of that, since it would presumably end up in investments after it is repatriated?
The FairTax is far superior to the current broken down system, especially since more and more people are not paying taxes. Who is taking up the slack? We tax payers are doing that.
Our imports from countries with the VAT tax have an unfair advantage over our exports. Why? Because they can chop off their VAT tax, whereas we cannot get rid of our embedded taxes. With the FairTax, our goods will cost less, which would make the US more competitive.
The original reason for creating the FairTax began with a few businessmen who were griping about having to spend so much time in board meetings, talking about tax consequences of their decisions. Somebody said, “Do something about it!” So, they did. What we ended up with, is the most well-thought out, most studied tax system, ever. Mayb e this will interest you: Link:Letter to the President=
By Another taxpayer
January 5, 2008 9:03 AM | Link to this
Robert,
Why do you even want to guess who I am or what my agenda is. I gave a legitimate example of how something as American as purchasing a house will result in a significant increase in taxation. I’ve also done other calculations on my own expenses. Why don’t you provide some actual examples of “fair” tax calculations that you have done? Why don’t you quit claiming to know what is best for others? Let’s take a look at another of your statements:
Then you mentioned that your concern was the double taxing of your savings. When that is your concern, and not the wellfair of younger people, I can only assume that you have no children.
Again, I don’t have to look any farther than my own household to answer your concern. You see, my dependent child relies on my income for support. If I were taxed 23+% on consumption, then her braces, clothes, vacations, computer, etc., would have to be re-evaluated in light of the increased cost to feed our family, heat our house, maintaining a non-leaking roof over our heads, keep a good vehicle for trips to the doctor, etc…..
Do you get the picture yet? No.
Well, start by showing me some of you Math. Add up the yearly expenses for you or someone such as you, subtract your prebate, and tell me what you have left.
Are you convinced yet? No.
OK. Try this exercise. Tell me what incentive a business will have to pass on savings related to trying to dodge paying taxes in the first place. If so many corporations cared so much for so many people, don’t you think that a good place to show it would be in the salaries of the executives. Do you think there would be no takers for the jobs if multi-million dollar stock options were eliminated? Do you think manufacturing jobs and service sector jobs have been moved to China and India because there are no people here to take them? Do you think we need emphasis in the US on taxes (by whatever name) or on jobs? What do you do for a living? Could you live off of a $7/hr, $8/hr, $9/hr job? Do you know how many government workers (those are people that are paid with taxes) actually have household income and healthcare benefits that are higher than the people who are paying for their services? Are you beginning to see beyond this “Fair” tax scam? No. Well, don’t give up. After all, you represent our future.
By Another taxpayer
January 5, 2008 9:20 AM | Link to this
And Ken Lay said I’m Innocent. It wasn’t me that scammed all those people out of their money. It was all those greedy as*es that I hired.
And Creflo Dollar said I have a legitimate business use for that Bentley. Let us prey.
And all those CEOs that got canned as a result of the real estate problems and credit crunch say THANK YOU. No. I don’t think they said thank you.
And all those drug dealers are all talking about how they are going to be affected by the 23% tax. Bullets are going to be outrageous…….
By Bitter EX democrackkk
January 5, 2008 9:37 AM | Link to this
It should be noted that Allen Buckley is, as I remember, a CPA in Cobb County. I have YET to meet an accounting type who would embrace any significant IRS change or abolishment. I find this VERY offensive from accountants!
By AL
January 5, 2008 11:59 AM | Link to this
Another taxpayer, I am nowhere nearly as educated as you, but even i understand the Fair Tax. It appears that you are looking at certian aspects of the bill (HR 25) and not at the whole thing.
The Fair Tax is not perfect but it is far better than the current system. Please research this further, fairtax.org has all the information. The Boortz/Linder book explains the bill in simple terms. It can be read in almost one sitting.
You point out too many things here to go into here. For the hard numbers go to fairtax.org. There is a calculator at the website that will compare income tax to fair tax.
The fair tax was not developed by politicians. So there is no political agenda to it other than to change the way the Federal govt. is funded.
By Sedgwick
January 5, 2008 4:59 PM | Link to this
I have scanned the comment section of this article and whether it’s too late to post or not, it begs of one all the same.
Here’s my comment - it’s simple: For those of you against - have you even read the book? Most of those against provide hysterical/rabid claims (spewage) that this will hurt the poor - read the book and you too will become enlightened on how the FairTax will enrich the poor, grow the economy, bring back businesses that have fled because of current tax policies, etc., etc. - and yes, even “drug criminals” will be subjected to the consumption tax.
By Another taxpayer
January 5, 2008 6:08 PM | Link to this
Al,
I know nothing of your education so I cannot offer a comparison. I do know that anyone suggesting that I need to just visit fairtax.org, read, and become enlightened, is just being presumptuous. How do you suppose I knew to subtract my estimate at a poverty level prebate from the 23% tax on the house? How do you suppose I divined the fact that it had to be a NEW house? I will re-iterate that the “Fair” tax does me no good. In fact, it does me more harm than good. I will not be sucked into your claims of “Elysian fields” for they rely on far too many assumptions — assumptions as absurd as prohibition will work, everyone will be honest, businesses will return to the US once the tax burden is lifted….Can you really be so naive.
Now, back to my ignored request — show me your own calculations based on your income and expenses.
By Fed Up
January 5, 2008 6:11 PM | Link to this
I do like a few aspects of the fairtax, but its negatives outweigh its positives. If you really study the details of the “Fair”Tax, you’ll find that there’s not much really fair about it.
How is it “fair” that the seriously ill would be taxed at such a steep rate on their medicine and medical bills, when stock purchases aren’t taxed at all?
How is it “fair” that rent would be taxed at the 30% rate every month, yet if you buy a pre-existing home, you don’t pay any tax at all?
How is it “fair” that credit card payments and interest is taxed, yet mortgsge interest and principal payments are not?
Even the rates of the prebates as currently set up are unfair. How is it “fair” that a married couple with no kids would receive more than a single mother with two kids?
I’m no fan of the current tax system, but its far more fair than the so-called “fair”tax. I have studied the “fair”tax, and the more I learn about it, the more I realize that its obviously unfair.
The “fair”tax would impose a steep tax on medicine, credit card payments, and rent, while at the same time lowering the effective tax rate of millionaires to as low as one percent. How is that “fair”?
By Another taxpayer
January 5, 2008 6:33 PM | Link to this
Here’s a suggestion for you “fair” tax supporters. If you want to make positive changes, make a small (incremental) change, measure its effect and keep it if the change was positive (good) or toss it if the change was negative (bad). Write your elected officials and suggest they start with the alternative minimum tax legislation. It’s actually quite large but small relatively speaking. Next, request that they monitor the effect of eliminating the capital gains tax over the next several years. If it does not have the desired effect, then maybe they should introduc