Just how fair is the 'FairTax'?

Money.cnn ^ | 9/7/05 | Pat Regnier

[shuckmaster]

I suppose you believe the price of gasoline is going to drop back to $2 as soon as the pipeline is back online?

[shuckmaster]

I don't think that 25 years after the Fair Tax would be enacted that every American would be driving 26 year old cars. Do you?

Do you think the government will go 24 years without collecting taxes while they wait for your used car to breakdown?

[Always Right]

Boy you are a gullible sort aren't you.

ROTFL....the level of denial of fair taxers never ceases to amaze me.

[Always Right]

Even Linder and Boortz admit the book is misleading!

I pressed the point with Boortz and Linder. Boortz denies that the book intentionally overpromises. The introduction, he notes, emphasizes that "this book isn't about saving a penny in taxes." But he concedes that the book is confusing about this, and vows to correct it in later printings. Fair enough.

[xrp]

Do you think the government will go 24 years without collecting taxes while they wait for your used car to breakdown?

Uhm...there's a LOT more things that Americans buy than just cars.

[shuckmaster]

"It is practically and logically impossible for the government be collecting the same amount of money as before and have everyone suddenly be better off,"

Thank you for bringing a bit of logical reasoning into the discussion.

[xrp]

No, and I'm not going to.

Thanks. You just outed yourself as uninformed and closed minded. You've also outed yourself as favoring Communist Manifesto Pillars (income tax), big government, favoring that the government "let the people keep" some of their income (by intercepting "their share" before the income earners receive it) and lover of the IRS Overlords.

In other words, not conservative.

[Always Right]

Do you realize Jorgenson never said that the 22% was composed solely of wages?

Do you realize I am not saying that? I realize what that 22% is more than anyone in this forum, see my post 72.

Have you read Jorgensons work?

I have read the testimony he submitted to Congress on this subject. AFFT owns the study and does not make it available. I would gladly read it as it would confirm again everything I said.

[xrp]

Huh? Petroleum pipelines don't have anything to do with the Fair Tax.

But, since you asked, gas prices in my area of the country (south metro Kansas City) have dropped from a high of $3.29 to $2.96 in mere days.

Market forces. Too bad you don't believe in -- or trust -- the market.

Again, thanks for outing yourself as a non-conservative.

[lewislynn]

You have not read the fair tax book,... The Fair Tax is THE ONLY plan out there that completely untaxes the poor. The big secret: it untaxes them but disallows their vote. The 50% of the citizenry that now can vote itself largesse from the treasury will no longer be able to do that.

LOL...Yea it's a big secret alright 50% of the citizenry are poor and vote themselves more money. (maybe just in groanup's neighborhood). If you're poor the Fairtax will "disallow" your vote if they "untax" you, and don't confuse "untax" in the form of a government check every month with government largesse either...LOL!

Of course the only way you could know any of that is to read "the book". All but "the big secrets" are in it and there are some big secrets they don't want you to know about too...disallowing votes is just one of many.

[SolarisRocks]

When I pay 8.25 % in sales tax on a 100.00 item the tax in 8.25.

What is the fairtax due on a 100.00 purchase?

[woodbeez]

From peteb In post 11

If an hourly worker is working for $10 an hour and the Fair Tax passes do you really think a boss is going to walk up to a worker and say "Hey, the Fair Tax passed, I'm only going to pay you $7.50 and hour

From annelizly in post 32

I could see the employer who normal hires someone for 10$ an hour cutting his pay scale for any new hires to 7.50$. I think this could be a problem. I think that most places will pay the least they have to and if there are people willing to work for 7.50 then they won't pay 10$.

From konaice in post 41

Stop it with the $7.50 nonsense. Its bogus.

From Nucl in post 70

My employer wouldn't do that. I would receive all taxes not withheld in my take home pay.

Using the $10.00/$7.50 example used by so many: Right now you make $10.00/hr. If you would work 10 hours and had to pay 1/4 of that in taxes you get $75.00(take home pay). Under a NST, if your hourly wage was reduced to $7.50 you still would get $75.00(take home pay) for 10 hours of work. Your hourly rate goes down but you still receive the same amount of money for the same amount of work.You are not getting a pay raise or a pay cut. You keep 100% of your paycheck with no withholdings. No free money and no smaller paycheck. That sounds OK to me.

ancient geezer got it right in post post 64

What was wrong was how this was presented by Boortz and the FairTax supporters. They took the assumption that take-home pay would increase (from Assumption 1) and paired it with the assumption that consumer prices will stay the same (from Assumption 2). They mixed the best of both worlds and came up with a windfall, that take-home pay would increase while consumer prices stayed the same, that could not possibly happen. Much of the proported benefits of the FairTax come from this erroneous assumption made by Boortz and the FairTax supporters

[shuckmaster]

You read one charlatan huckster's book and start calling folks who don't drink the kool-aid commies? You're the only one discredited by your narrow minded gullibility here.

[shuckmaster]

Don't be so hard on them. I recall when I was young, I read an Eric Von Danikin book and for several weeks later couldn't understand why everyone else refused to believe the pyramids were built by alien astronauts.

[konaice]

DUH!...No withholding from what is the question?

Your argument makes no sense.

But even if it did you'd still be wrong.

Lets take Always Right's assertion that wages everywhere would drop (inspite of the fact that there's not a shred of evidence to this), and lets work with that....

What would be the net effect in your scenario:?
Everybody would make less?
Prices would fall - But be offset by the NRST, so goods cost the same?
But people have less money?
So they buy less with their lower wages?
Companies would sell less and lay everybody off?
The government would go broke?
Our entire economic system would come to a halt?

Is that what you postulate?

So you are essentially saying our whole economy RELIES on our income tax system? Jeeze thats the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Several Democrats tried to tell me the same thing.

FairTax is revenue neutral. You won't pay any more than you are now, it will just be more visible. Government will collect the same amount. Big business is not going to get a windfall of profit, because somewhere a little business will do with just a little less profit and the whole system will come back into balance.

You run around making noise like you've found some big glaring error in the grand scheme when all it amounts to is a pimple on an elephant's butt. The writer grabbed a number out of the air and you run with it like it means something.

I emphatically disclaim the proposition that wages would fall - certainly not by 20%.

[woodbeez]

Here we go again.

[goldstategop]

ONE tax. Right now people pay a ton of separate taxes. And nothing would advance freedom further in this country than by getting the IRS out of our wallets - and out of our lives.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[lewislynn]

I read an Eric Von Danikin book and for several weeks later couldn't understand why everyone else refused to believe the pyramids were built by alien astronauts.

Sadly this has been going on for years and it seems like everyday ONE of them actually posts as fact his/her own idea of what would be...In this case it's the Fairtax "disallows votes" and 50% of the citizenry is poor AND they all vote themselves more money/largesse...

[goldstategop]

That is an objection easily addressed with a prebate and a basket of essential goods and services necessary to sustain life being off limits to taxation. So yes, people will pay more for luxury goods but on the other hand, money put away and saved is NOT taxed.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[goldstategop]

We'd still pay a state sales tax. Under a fair tax, most states would do away with their own income taxes. Your average state sales taxes is around 8% so add that that to the federal level and you get 31%. Is that high? Depends - today under various separate taxes, the government grabs 50% of your income. The amount of the overall tax burden could even lower if states eliminated all their other local levies too. That has two effects: it reduces the amount you pay and it boosts the economy since there is more revenue despite the tax cuts. That's been proven in the real world by the Bush tax cuts. Its countertuitive logic and yet its true which is why tax-raising liberals don't understand that raising taxes actually depresses or reduces overall tax revenues.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)