Posted on 08/28/2007 4:39:18 PM PDT by Bigun
The People Must Demand The Fair Tax
By Doug Patton
August 28, 2007
Last year, during the United States Senate race in Nebraska, Republican challenger Pete Ricketts suggested that every option must be considered when looking at ways to reform our federal tax system. Among the list of alternatives Ricketts said should be on the table was a national sales tax known simply as the "Fair Tax."
The Democrat incumbent, U.S. Sen. Ben Nelson, launched an attack on his opponent that was, at best, distorted and condescending, at worst, irrational demagoguery. One would have thought that Ricketts had suggested stealing all the assets of the poor and handing them over to Warren Buffet and Bill Gates.
Recently, the panel of pundits on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," discussing the apparent rise in popularity of former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee's presidential campaign message, scoffed at Huckabee's unabashed promotion of the Fair Tax.
George Will, the token "conservative" on the panel, brushed it aside with the disbelief of an elitist who cannot understand the burden of the average worker who would love to take home his or her entire paycheck, as the Fair Tax would allow him or her to do. Will opined that Huckabee's second place showing in the Iowa straw poll was even more amazing given the fact that "he supported a national sales tax of thirty percent, which means that if you buy a one million dollar house, you'll be writing a check to the government for three hundred thousand dollars." Of course, the others on the panel readily agreed.
The elites of this country, who buy those million-dollar homes, are not enamored with the Fair Tax. They would be if they took the time to understand its appeal.
The Fair Tax would replace all federal income taxes. No more federal withholding. No more Social Security withholding. No more Medicare withholding. No more stealing from the paychecks of American workers before they even see it and then pretending to give them a refund, without interest, at the end of the year. No more saving receipts for tax deductions. No more IRS audits. No more April 15th.
Instead, the Fair Tax would put us in control. All consumer items would be taxed. Business purchases would not. By allowing us to make the determination about what we buy and when we buy it, the ability of our legislators to manipulate our behavior is eliminated. That is why the elites don't like it. They can't control the public's spending habits under such a system.
The current federal tax system is broken. It cannot be fixed. Since the inception of the federal income tax with the passage of the 16th Amendment in 1913, federal corruption and control have turned it into a Frankenstein monster that torments the people and serves the special interests. A tax on a person's income is a tax on production, and as Ronald Reagan once said, "Whatever you tax, you get less of."
Because the poor are forced to spend a disproportionate percentage of their resources to cover the tax on necessities, the Fair Tax hits them the hardest. That issue can be addressed by simply issuing a "prebate" check each month to every household in the country. Unlike disingenuous tax credits, deductions, exemptions and other loopholes in the current income tax code, a prebate check is a clean, honest method of covering the sales tax on food, clothing and shelter - up to the poverty level.
Of course, removing the income tax on corporations will reduce the cost of everything we buy, since corporations don't pay taxes. They simply pass them along to consumers. The Fair Tax plan calculates that removing the corporate income tax will result in a reduction in the cost of virtually every consumer item on the market. In fact, it will just about offset the tax on those products. Imagine paying the same price for something but having your entire paycheck to buy it.
And then there are the billions of dollars that flow untaxed through our economy today: drug dealers, prostitutes, pornographers, foreign tourists. Imagine how much revenue could be raised simply by taxing the things those people consume.
There would be no more audits, no more justifying deductions, and April 15th would become just another spring day. But only if the people stand up to the elites and demand it.
From FAQ #4
Why not just exempt food and medicine from the tax? Wouldn’t that be fair and simple?
Exempting items by category is neither fair nor simple. Respected economists have shown that the wealthy spend much more on unprepared food, clothing, housing, and medical care than do the poor. Exempting these goods, as many state sales taxes do, actually gives the wealthy a disproportionate benefit. Also, today these purchases are not exempted from federal taxation. The purchase of food, clothing, and medical services is made from after-income-tax and after-payroll-tax dollars, while their purchase price hides the cost of corporate taxes and private sector compliance costs.”
We’ll take 3 out of 4....food, housing, medical services.
He deserves an Oscar then because he was darned convincing. It must have been the role he was born (weaned) to play.Though I think what I said is partially true it was said more to make a point about the other poster's ignorance....
Almost reminiscent of certain programs run by governments our soldiers defeated prior to the baby boom.
Almost reminiscent of certain programs run by governments our soldiers defeated prior to the baby boom.I was thinking "super race" mentality too.
I’m a baby boomer.
The purchase of food, clothing, and medical services is made from after-income-tax and after-payroll-tax dollars, while their purchase price hides the cost of corporate taxes and private sector compliance costs.”Food, medical services and even medical/medicne research are all subsidized by taxpayers. Taking their tax burden away wouldn't change that, it would just be one more subsidy by the taxpayers.
Good observation. I look at these issues as an economist and I really wanted to respond to the item “after income tax and after payroll tax dollars, and wondered what that was for a moment......
Three cheers for baby boomers!
Your article is false. The FairTax calculator shows a huge savings for your family of 4 renting and making $40,000.
That you would post this piece of garbage without checking it out shows all we need to know about you.
You might ask yourself how it is possible for everyone to have “huge savings” with the FairTax calculator?
I hope you are able to get past your fantasy, and find a way to take a critical look at the FREE LUNCH plan that you are so invested in. It’s a fraud.
Oh I see I got to you. You can’t stand up to a real challenge so you deflect it with accusations.
There’s a little fact that you should know, it’s called psych projection. This is where a disturbed individual expresses a behavior that they themselves cannot accept about themselves. So they accuse someone else of the behavior hoping to project the reality of their character flaw onto someone else.
Now go ahead and ‘cut & paste’ something and accuse others of not having read your ‘cut & paste’. That’s projection.
Or do what you typically do and read something into your ‘cut & paste’ that is not there. That’s delusion.
Of course you will project ‘anger’ onto me for pointing these things out to you.
Let’s see what you come up with, should be interesting.
I know the reasons.
But first things first, how about first answering for posting that piece of garbage?
Are you standing by the liar that wrote a family of 4 renting and grossing $40,000 pays more under the FairTax?
>>Of course, removing the income tax on corporations will reduce the cost of everything we buy, since corporations don’t pay taxes.<<
This (and other fair tax pushes) sounds an awful lot like free money.
If we accept those figures, then why offer a prebate to anyone? If there is indeed "no loss of purchasing power", then why do the poor need more money?
Now, there may be some deep philosophical reason ("an individual should not be forced to pay taxes on the basic necessities of life"), but if that's so important, why is everyone forced to pay those embedded taxes today? Shouldn't we all be getting a prebate today to offset those embedded and hidden taxes on the basic necessities of life?
The only conclusion I can reach is that you're not telling me the truth about the Fair Tax.
Oh I am posting more. But unlike you, I have a life. Frankly you are getting more attention from than you ever deserved.
Employing social psychology to convince and encourage is not ‘scary’ nor demeanng.
We are talking about women that want to have children or more children but who think it unwise for a variety of reasons, but mostly for economic reasons. If government cuts taxes on families and encourages more child bearing as is done in France, the birthrate will rise hopefully to a level that will keep entitlement programs for the elderly and disabled solvent.
Social psychology is simply the promotion of the view that ‘everybody’s doing it, we should to’. So if families feel more secure to have three or four children versus zero, one or two, that is the result of relieving them from the uncertainty surrounding them presently.
So once again you are reading something into words that does not exist, in this case you are twisting a simple government famly promotion program idea into something sinister.
Our government has promoted larger families in the past. It is one of the factors in the creation of the Baby Boom. Promoting something is not the same as forcing it. But your delusional reading will of course extrapolate ‘reeducation camps’ from the statement.
Turret Gunner A20
PigDog (retired)
etc.. etc...
So when you can't understand something it must be because you are being lied to? Yet you lie yourself. What is that? Nevermind, I know the answer.
If we accept those figures, then why offer a prebate to anyone?
To overcome the objection of leftists that the poor pay disproportionately more for necessities.
If there is indeed "no loss of purchasing power", then why do the poor need more money?
Ask a socialist.
Now, there may be some deep philosophical reason ("an individual should not be forced to pay taxes on the basic necessities of life"), but if that's so important, why is everyone forced to pay those embedded taxes today?
'Everyone' is not paying embedded taxes. Many of the poor are currently subsidized, for example with food stamps which today are doled out as debit cards.
Shouldn't we all be getting a prebate today to offset those embedded and hidden taxes on the basic necessities of life?
Uh...yeah....that's in the FairTax bill. But under the Income tax, socialists believe only the poor should receive handouts. At last you asked an intelligent question for the first time.
The only conclusion I can reach is that you're not telling me the truth about the Fair Tax.
Of course, you can't comprehend, therefore it's all a lie!
Why not just write:
‘Anyone that does not agree with me’
or:
‘Anyone that points out my self-delusion to me’?
Fairtaxer are like detainees trying to talk their way out of GitMo.
detainee: "Let me Go!"
Guard: "Why?"
detainee: "We are peaceful people.."
Guard: "Really?"
detainee: "Yes we are peaceful people.."
Guard: "I don't think so.."
detainee: "We will blow up your country!!"
This is the part I don't understand. A $1 loaf of bread today will still cost only $1 under the Fair Tax, correct? Instead of embedded and hidden, the taxes will now be visible.
A poor family still has the same amount of disposable income under the Fair Tax, correct? Why then the prebate?
Now, if prices rise because of the Fair Tax and poor families have the same amount of disposable income, then I can see the reason. But have the Fair taxers admitted that prices will rise? Certainly not the author of this article. Not Hostage. Not groanup.
Odd. The only way to justify the prebate is a scenario to which they will not admit.
Lastly, are the Fair Tax supporters saying that government poverty spending will not increase to compensate for rising prices? I'm thinking specifically of ADC, welfare, food stamps, WIC, and all the other programs to help the poor. The prebate will supposedly offset those increased costs, right?
If poverty spending increases by 23%, then isn't it a double payment to the poor?
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.