Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Facts on Fair Tax show it's a great idea
Tribune & Georgian ^ | 9/16/2005 | Jay Moreno

Posted on 09/16/2005 5:15:32 PM PDT by Man50D

Dear Editor, I've just read a new best-seller, which I highly recommend to you and your readers: "The Fair Tax Book, Saying Goodbye to the Income Tax and the IRS."

The co-authors are "reformed lawyer" and syndicated talk show host Neal Boortz, and Congressman John Linder, R-Ga.

Linder is also the principal author/sponsor of The Fair Tax Bill (H.R. 25), currently before Congress.

In the interest of brevity (the book is only 180 pages, by the way), I'll quote from the back of the dust jacket.

"What the Fair Tax will do for America: eliminate the income tax and the dreaded IRS; jump start the U.S. economy; bring businesses and jobs back to the United States; and recapture billions of untaxed dollars currently lost to criminal and offshore businesses.

"What the Fair Tax will do for you: allow you to keep 100 percent of your hard-earned paycheck; let you choose to save all the money you want .... and pay taxes only when you spend it; eliminate countless taxes you don't even know you're paying; lower interest rates; and make April 15th just another beautiful spring day."

The authors provide ample citations from the works of various economic think-tanks to back each of those assertions.

The Fair Tax would replace all current federal, income-based taxes with one universal, federal "consumption tax," on both goods and services, at the retail level only. There would be no exemptions whatsoever. The proposed, "revenue neutral," initial tax rate would be 23 percent. Predictions are that the resulting economic boom would make it possible to lower that rate in short order.

As described so far, the Fair Tax would be so regressive as not to stand a snowball's chance in hell of passage. Here's the solution.

At the first of every month, every head-of-household, irrespective of income/net worth, would receive a federal "pre-bate" check equal to the taxes due on his or her appropriate "poverty level spending" for the coming month. To quote the authors, "'Poverty level spending' is, by definition, that spending necessary for a household of a given size to pay for its necessities. It is adjusted every year by the Department of Health and Human Services."

For example, if the Fair Tax were currently in effect, every family of four would receive a monthly pre-bate of $491.82 to cover the 23 percent tax on its first $2,138.22 spent -- its "poverty level spending." All spending above that level (that month) would have a net federal tax cost of 23 cents on the dollar -- be it for sneakers or a yacht.

The federal sales tax would be collected by the states' sales tax offices. Moreover, don't forget that everyone's "take-home-pay" would be their full, gross earnings under the Fair Tax.

It is a most interesting, concise and thought-provoking read that can be knocked out in two or three sittings. Suggested full retail is $24.95. There is at least one copy available at the Camden County Public Library.

I hope that you and your readers will both enjoy the book and come to support the bill.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: april15; boortz; conartists; confusion; dupe; fairtax; flattax; flimflam; hoax; hr25; incometax; ira; irs; liar; linder; nrst; retraction; scam; scientology; smuggling; somethingfornothing; swindle; taxes; taxfraud; taxreform
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 341-360 next last
To: Bigun
In addition to the out-of-pocket cost, Americans spend 5.4 billion hours each year complying with the federal tax code - roughly the equivalent of 3 million people working full time. If it were employed in productive activity, the labor now devoted to tax compliance would be worth $232 billion annually.
Uh huh, we've seen that phoney study. That's where they value your time watching Oprah at $25.00 an hr. Instead you're doing your taxes when you could be making candles in the garage, or mowing your neighbors lawn (for $25 hr.) As if everyone would get a second job rather than spend a few hours doing their taxes.

The fairtax answer to unproductive people is to "untax" them by sending them yet another big government check every month paid for from the fruits of someone elses labor simply because they can afford to buy more stuff. What's the value if all those people were employed in productive activity?

101 posted on 09/17/2005 8:19:18 AM PDT by lewislynn (Status quo today is the result of eliminating the previous status quo. Be careful what you wish for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: groanup
... but he made a major gaffe in the book and his stupid explanation is close to jeopardizing the whole thing.

Yes, he did. But without that gaffe, there would be no book.

And let's hope this is the stake in the heart of the FAIRTAX vampire and we can finally get back to fixing the federal budget and reducing the size of government. And then abolishing the IRS.

102 posted on 09/17/2005 8:19:35 AM PDT by balrog666 (A myth by any other name is still inane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Your Nightmare
Sorry, Nightie ... nobody here picked Boortz at all - nor are all his ideas somehow blindely accepted. He is, however, correct on far and away most of the material.

A few errors don't make the overall message any less correct. As for the prices being shown inclusive of tax, here's what the bill requires:

"`SEC. 510. TAX TO BE SEPARATELY STATED AND CHARGED.

`(a) In General- For each purchase of taxable property or services for which a tax is imposed by section 101, the seller shall charge the tax imposed by section 101 separately from the purchase. For purchase of taxable property or services for which a tax is imposed by section 101, the seller shall provide to the purchaser a receipt for each transaction that includes--

`(1) the property or services price exclusive of tax;

`(2) the amount of tax paid;

`(3) the property or service price inclusive of tax;

`(4) the tax rate (the amount of tax paid (per paragraph (2)) divided by the property or service price inclusive of tax (per paragraph (3));

`(5) the date that the good or service was sold;

`(6) the name of the vendor; and

`(7) the vendor registration number."

(emphasis added)
103 posted on 09/17/2005 8:20:43 AM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: upchuck
The inventory situation you mention is for cetain qualifying inventory defined in the bill and it gives an immediate 23% reduction in price on DAY ONE - the retailer of course will be the one to decide what to do with this Transitional Inventory Credit (as it's called) but it is a credit for taxes already paid so as not to tax the thingss involved more than once.

See SEC. 902. TRANSITION MATTERS. in the bill.

The poster Conservative Goddess explained it very well on post 316 on this thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1485008/posts?q=1&&page=301

The Roth IRA isn't anything like this since taxes have not already been paid on the instruments nor are they being held for retail sale to end consumers. Perhaps you should lobby our congressman about it.

104 posted on 09/17/2005 8:36:56 AM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Man50D
Some people use scepticism as a way to feel intelligent. A truly good sceptic is sceptical of his own scepticism. It seems to me that any good debate requires the latter.

It's good to see some of you are good sceptics.

Thanks for the discussion.
105 posted on 09/17/2005 8:41:46 AM PDT by Return to the Public (IRS. A Karl Marx dream.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FBD
lewislynn: Why do you constantly disparage people on the FairTax threads?
It was a compliment.

Is crying to mommy the new Fairtax tactic of silencing everyone you don't like?

106 posted on 09/17/2005 8:43:34 AM PDT by lewislynn (Status quo today is the result of eliminating the previous status quo. Be careful what you wish for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Fierce Allegiance
Is our current wealth-redistribution taxation system really that good, in yur eyes?
I'm sorry, I missed the part of the Fairtax that eliminates wealth distribution. Maybe you could point out the part that does that.
107 posted on 09/17/2005 8:48:22 AM PDT by lewislynn (Status quo today is the result of eliminating the previous status quo. Be careful what you wish for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook

No, that's not correct on several counts. One is that prices will, indeed go down. See the post #96 to get an idea of how taxes boost prices artificially. When these embedded tax costs are removed it is clear that prices will go down. They have to.

How much you spend depends upon several things - only one of which is how much you make. Another is whether you have savings that you CHOOSE to spend. Another is the CHOICES that YOU make for your own consumption. As you may have noticed, not all things are taxes under the FairTax (e.g. college tuition in the "college costs" you mention).

Most people will be paying far less of their wages (which will, despite naysayers to the contrary, almost surely remain as it is and then later increase due to economic growth caused by the FairTax) than 23% since there is a prebate unless you choose to not have it and 23% will actually never be paid by any taxpayer - though a few very rich big spenders will be very close to that.


108 posted on 09/17/2005 8:49:53 AM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: lewislynn

It does not contain the EIC, a streaight-up redistribution of wealth program - aka socialism.

I have not read the whole thing and I am clearly not the super-expert on Fairtax like you, so maybe you can point out where it does include redistribution of wealth.


109 posted on 09/17/2005 8:53:08 AM PDT by Fierce Allegiance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

That's certainly your choice to make. But when you do just be aware that under the present system you'll be paying not only taxes sometimes on some of the withdrawals, but also the "hidden taxes" embedded in all that you buy as indicated in post #96.

It is obviously a conscious choice on your part but you need to be aware of all the considerations that are involved, that's all.


110 posted on 09/17/2005 8:56:38 AM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
"... stake in the heart of the FAIRTAX vampire ..."

Not in your wildest dreams. A small hiccup like that will have little overall effect and will eventually be straightned out.

You also don't seem to realize there will never be a "... fixing of the federal budget and reducing the size of government ..." under the present system. Cannot possibly happen as taxpayers have no real influence - only the government does.

111 posted on 09/17/2005 9:03:49 AM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: lewislynn
Uh huh, we've seen that phoney study.

LOL! It's only phoney to folks who's minds are to small to grasp what has been presented. Everyone else seems to understand it just fine!

112 posted on 09/17/2005 9:47:54 AM PDT by Bigun (IRS sucks @getridof it.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

Oh sure, a National Sales Tax on everything.
Great idea. Not!


113 posted on 09/17/2005 9:50:37 AM PDT by voteconstitutionparty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upchuck
You REALLY should take a little time and read this.
114 posted on 09/17/2005 9:55:37 AM PDT by Bigun (IRS sucks @getridof it.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Man50D
I think that Property taxes and the sinful SS tax would be raised rather quickly, and we don't have any say or little say in those taxes...

the govt thinks is can keep creeping up the SS tax and make we poor suckers work longer without a glitch....

and property taxes....it'll force us out of our home if things keep going the way they are...

where govt people see extra money, they go after it....

115 posted on 09/17/2005 10:08:41 AM PDT by cherry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook
"Hopefully a fair tax means a single tax on income of all types, no exclusions."

you're going to get the captial gains people whining again.....

116 posted on 09/17/2005 10:10:15 AM PDT by cherry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: pigdog
I've run some numbers on some of the top companies in the US. Many have income tax burdens that are a very low percentage of revenue.
Some are negative, so they get money back from the Gov't for being in business, this I guess lowers the cost of the product in the supply chain.
Anyway, just thinking from a scientific point of view (total energy in a system). Federal tax revenues come from both the companies, and the people.
Ultimately all are paid by the consumer, so all we are talking about in a revenue neutral situation, is do I pay all my taxes at the register, or only
a small portion. I could also look at it in reverse. The corporation pays all taxes. They pay the employee withholding taxes to the Gov't so that they
may employ me at my take home pay. That's all I realize and can utilize, and I guess is sufficient to motivate me to do their bidding.
So ultimately, I will be paying just as much as I pay now (potentially minus the claimed efficiencies) at the register.
But this analysis does not recognize that I have accumulated, after tax wealth that will now be burdened with a new tax. If I have $500,000 in
after tax savings, I get a $75,000 reduction in purchasing power at the register, even considering the most generous "embedded" tax analysis you give.
As I'm reaching retirement, I have considerably more than that in after tax savings, and I am only a middle class lowly employee in a big company
living a modest lifestyle. I imagine that there are many baby boomers with much more accumulated savings, and if they realize what a highway
robbery is being considered here, they will revolt.
Exxon
PERIOD ENDING 31-Dec-04 31-Dec-03 31-Dec-02
Total Revenue $298,035,000 $246,738,000 $204,506,000
Income Tax Expense $15,911,000 $11,006,000 $6,499,000
5.3% 4.5% 3.2%
WalMart
PERIOD ENDING 31-Jan-05 31-Jan-04 31-Jan-03
Total Revenue $287,989,000 $258,681,000 $246,525,000
Income Tax Expense $5,589,000 $5,118,000 $4,487,000
1.9% 2.0% 1.8%
GM
PERIOD ENDING 31-Dec-03 31-Dec-02 31-Dec-01
Total Revenue $185,524,000 $186,763,000 $177,260,000
Income Tax Expense $731,000 $533,000 $768,000
0.4% 0.3% 0.4%
Ford
PERIOD ENDING 31-Dec-04 31-Dec-03 31-Dec-02
Total Revenue $171,652,000 $165,066,000 $163,420,000
Income Tax Expense $937,000 $135,000 $302,000
0.5% 0.1% 0.2%
A T & T
PERIOD ENDING 31-Dec-04 31-Dec-03 31-Dec-02
Total Revenue $30,537,000 $34,529,000 $37,827,000
Income Tax Expense ($4,560,000) $816,000 $1,587,000
-14.9% 2.4% 4.2%
GE
PERIOD ENDING 31-Dec-04 31-Dec-03 31-Dec-02
Total Revenue $152,866,000 $134,187,000 $131,698,000
Income Tax Expense $3,661,000 $4,315,000 $3,758,000
2.4% 3.2% 2.9%
Intl Paper
PERIOD ENDING 31-Dec-04 31-Dec-03 31-Dec-02
Total Revenue $25,548,000 $25,179,000 $24,976,000
Income Tax Expense $206,000 ($92,000) ($54,000)
0.8% -0.4% -0.2%
P & G
PERIOD ENDING 30-Jun-05 30-Jun-04 30-Jun-03
Total Revenue $56,741,000 $51,407,000 $43,377,000
Income Tax Expense $3,182,000 $2,869,000 $2,344,000
5.6% 5.6% 5.4%
AIG
PERIOD ENDING 31-Dec-04 31-Dec-03 31-Dec-02
Total Revenue $97,987,000 $81,303,000 $67,482,000
Income Tax Expense $4,620,000 $4,264,000 $2,328,000
4.7% 5.2% 3.4%
DOW Chem
PERIOD ENDING 31-Dec-04 31-Dec-03 31-Dec-02
Total Revenue $40,161,000 $32,632,000 $27,609,000
Income Tax Expense $877,000 ($82,000) ($280,000)
2.2% -0.3% -1.0%
EI DuPont
PERIOD ENDING 31-Dec-04 31-Dec-03 31-Dec-02
Total Revenue $27,995,000 $27,730,000 $24,522,000
Income Tax Expense ($329,000) ($930,000) $185,000
-1.2% -3.4% 0.8%
Pfizer
PERIOD ENDING 31-Dec-04 31-Dec-03 31-Dec-02
Total Revenue $52,516,000 $45,188,000 $32,373,000
Income Tax Expense $2,665,000 $1,621,000 $2,609,000
5.1% 3.6% 8.1%
Kroger
PERIOD ENDING 29-Jan-05 31-Jan-04 1-Feb-03
Total Revenue $56,434,000 $53,791,000 $51,760,000
Income Tax Expense $390,000 $454,000 $740,000
0.7% 0.8% 1.4%
Sprint/Nextel
PERIOD ENDING 31-Dec-04 31-Dec-03 31-Dec-02
Total Revenue $27,428,000 $26,197,000 $26,634,000
Income Tax Expense ($591,000) ($212,000) ($39,000)
-2.2% -0.8% -0.1%

117 posted on 09/17/2005 10:12:02 AM PDT by GregoryFul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: GregoryFul
Someone has their facts all screwed up.

Go back and read it again, REAL slow this time.

118 posted on 09/17/2005 10:12:38 AM PDT by Bigun (IRS sucks @getridof it.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Bigun
Annual output of one company in the Aircraft industry= $54 billion.

Annual cost of 93,000 IRS employees = $6 billion.

Ok, smarty, what's the small print?

119 posted on 09/17/2005 10:32:39 AM PDT by GregoryFul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Bigun
Thanks for the suggestion. I read that document a while back when it was first posted on the fairtax.org site.

The only paragraph in that document that is germane to this discussion:

The FairTax delivers a tax holiday on IRAs and other tax-deferred plans.
The income tax imposed on investment income and pension benefits or IRA withdrawals is repealed. No form of savings or investment is taxed. Pension funds, IRAs, and 401(k) plans has assets of over $11 trillion in 2003. An income tax deduction was taken for contributions to most of these plans. All beneficiaries and owners of these plans expected to pay income tax on them upon withdrawal, but are not required to do so once the income tax is repealed. Roth owners and post-tax retirement savers break even.
And the only sentence from the above germane to this discussion is the last one where this issue is glossed over again.
120 posted on 09/17/2005 10:42:10 AM PDT by upchuck ("If our nation be destroyed, it would be from the judiciary." ~ Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 341-360 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson