Posted on 12/15/2005 10:33:58 AM PST by Eaglewatcher
The author Laurence Vance gives a lengthy critic of Neal Boortz's and John Linder's book The Fair Tax Book. In Short, he misunderstands and misquotes (as many critics do) the actual workings of the Fair Tax.
Once you read his entire article you realize his real objection is not with the Fair Tax but with any Federal Taxation at all.
His Anarchist approach to no taxation in which he hates all forms of taxation is found at: http://www.mises.org/story/1975
The National Tax Payer's Union (NTU), Americans for Fair Taxation(AFFT), American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF), and many more support the Fair Tax HR25/S25. The Fair Tax is much more than just a book by a radio talk show host.
The Fair Tax is a well thought out and extensively researched Legislative package that takes a responsible approach to replacing the current archaic income and payroll tax system with a revenue neutral National Sales Tax system.
Unlike the Laurence Vance Article, the Fair Tax gives an alternative to the Income tax, Vance arguments are against all federal taxation whether it is Income tax or the Fair Tax.
For specific rebuttals read on:
Dec 14th, 2005: 08:29:48
Jeff Horgan writes: Hello Mr. Vance,
I started to read your review of the FairTax book and had to stop. I finished by skimming it. I realized what this was, a publish or parish review. Your review of the FairTax was so superficial that your review lacks any real weight or thought. You didn't understand that the 23% tax and the 30% tax reflected the same real amount. Simpler still you didn't even grasp that prices on the shelf would be represented in a tax inclusive form so that the consumer would more easily calculate the amount they are intending to spend but that at the moment of purchase the price of the product and the tax would be separated so the consumer could see their true tax burden. You made so many lazy and misleading arguments that this review will lacks substance to your peers. You needed to get your name on a published article as prerequisite to applying for jobs at a 4 year business school. If any of those schools read this article they will not be pleased with the quality of your work. I am sorry you wasted your time to write the review and I am sorry I wasted mine to read it.
Regards,
Jeff Horgan Richmond, Va
From the Fair Tax Blog Bill Rook Posts: http://www.fairtaxblog.com/20051213/liars-use-double-talk/
Liars use Double Talk to Lie about Lies in the Fair Tax
Ludwig von Mises Institute: Laurence Vance's December 12, 2005 "There is No Such Thing as a Fair Tax" review of The FairTax Book asserts three lies found in the book and asserts 17 problems with the Fair Tax. For brevity, this article shall only address the three lies. A follow-up article will debunk the perceived problems.
Lie #1: taxes would be voluntary under the FairTax. First we must realize that all of our actions have consequences. If an individual chooses to buy a new luxury car, he/she would have to pay federal sales tax. When the individual chooses to buy the new car, he/she is also choosing to pay federal sales tax. Section 505 of H.R.25, entitled PENALTIES details the civil and criminal penalties for non-compliance.
Under the Fair Tax, the federal sales tax would be reimbursed up to poverty level spending via the Family Consumption Allowance (FCA). An individual could purchase new food and services and still survive at poverty level spending. After the FCA, the net tax payments would be $0. The individual could spend significant additional sums of money on used items tax free. The individual could work and earn as much money as he/she possibly could--untaxed. If the individual chooses to purchase a standard of living above the meek poverty level, then net sales taxes would be due.
Under the current tax system, an individual, without dependents, is taxed from the first dollar earned at the FICA/Medicare rate of 7.65%. As annual earnings increase, additional progressive income taxes are due. Under the current system, the only option to not pay any federal income tax is to not work. That is not a valid option.
Given the above two alternatives, the Fair Tax provides the only valid choice. Although the qualifying "Tax Free" situation is narrow in scope, it is possible. When an individual chooses to purchase a standard of living above the poverty level, he/she is choosing to pay the federal sales tax. Therefore, the tax is voluntary. The assertion that item #1 is a Lie is false.
Lie #2: the FairTax rate would be 23 percent. We are talking apples and oranges here. Anyone who claims that both are just fruit is attempting to mislead and misinform the public. The Fair Tax is presented to replace the income tax. The income tax is an inclusive tax. The appropriate Fair Tax percentage for an inclusive comparison is 23%. Recognizing that some comparisons could benefit from an exclusive tax analysis, the following conversion table is provided.
Apples Oranges
Tax (inclusive) (exclusive)
Fair Tax 23% 29.9%
Payroll: FICA 6.2% N/A
Payroll: Medicare 1.45% N/A
Income Tax 10%-35% N/A
Income & Payroll
10% Bracket 17.65% 21.4%
15% Bracket 22.65% 29.3%
25% Bracket 32.65% 48.5%
28% Bracket <$90K 35.65% 55.4%
28% Bracket >$90K 29.45% 41.7%
33% Bracket 34.45% 52.6%
35% Bracket 36.45% 57.4%
When making comparisons, the appropriate inclusive/exclusive percentage must be used. Either column can be used, but a comparison of taxes between columns is wrong. Only apples to apples or oranges to oranges comparisons are valid. While we are at the comparison game, the following table provides sales verses income tax percentages with the average state sales and income taxes included.
Tax Inclusive Exclusive
Fair Tax + 6.33% Ave. State Sales Tax 26.6% 36.2%
35% Bracket + Medicare + 4.44% Ave. State Income Tax 40.9% 94.3%
Any argument quoting a combined Fair Tax and state sales tax rate above 36% exclusive is only valid when it is compared to a 94% exclusive combined state and federal income tax rate. However, as a business person filling out the national sales tax form, under the line that says "Gross retail sales of new goods and services," I'm going to put down the 23% inclusive rate. The assertion that item #2 is a Lie is false.
Lie #3: the Fair Tax would abolish the IRS. Laurence Vance debunks this one himself. "The Fair Tax will abolish the IRS in the same way that it will abolish the income tax--by replacing it with something else." The assertion that item #3 is a Lie is false.
The Fair Tax Act of 2005 does not call for a total closure of the federal government--not even a modest 1% cut in spending. In fact, Boortz and Linder promote the Fair Tax as revenue neutral. What does this have to do with abolishing the IRS? Nothing! Just as Vance's accusations have nothing to do with tax reform.
When Boortz talks about abolishing the IRS, he is referring to abolishing the intrusive nature of government inquisition into our personal and business finances. He is referring to eliminating a tax system where the government gets paid as a result of our individual and business efforts before we do. Income and payroll taxes are deducted from our pay before we see the first dime. Businesses must pay matching payroll taxes while the manufactured goods sit in the warehouse.
Will there still be inquisition into our personal finances? Sure, some. Employers will still report gross earnings to the Social Security Administration for calculation of retirement benefits. If a family wants to receive the FCA, they must file with the appropriate agency. The employer will file one form, and the head of household will file the other. Compare this to the current 1040 with the associated schedules A, B, C, SE, and so on. The inquisition will hardly be intrusive.
What about businesses, will their books be scrutinized? Again, yes, of course. Under Fair Tax, the burden of the tax collection process and paperwork will be shifted to businesses. However, this new responsibility for the collection process and paperwork will be significantly less cumbersome and intrusive than the current system. Let's look at a business situation, a Motion Picture Business. A big star with a lot of clout will demand a percentage of gross sales. Gross sales are easy to calculate. Just add up all sales and calculate the split. The Fair Tax is similar to this example. Businesses must track and total gross consumer sales, an easy number. Twenty-three percent of that tally is consumption tax. Send it in.
Applying this analogy with the current tax system, the actor would demand a cut of net profits. What are net profits? Bingo. They have to be defined. What are the valid expenses? Can the "Making of Footage" for the DVD's be counted as a legitimate expense? What about product placement fees? Does that income count when calculating net profits? The actor's agent and lawyer will lobby one way on an issue and the movie company's lawyer will lobby the other way. A lot of time and effort will be spent on details as each side lobbies for a better deal. Under the current tax system, the IRS will audit a business and demand justifications for every expense. Collecting, maintaining, and defending such justifications becomes a dauntingly expensive task, just to comply with the tax code.
The market (buyers and sellers) determines the prices of goods and services. Under the Fair Tax, businesses will be taxed 23% of the gross sales--an easy calculation. Businesses must operate within the means provided by their remaining 77% share of the gross sale. Alternately, a business could determine the pretax market price for their goods and services and keep 100%. They would then add an additional 29.9% at the till for sales tax--again, easy calculations. Both methods result in the same dollar amount of taxes; it really is just a matter of semantics. If the wrong semantics (math equations) are used, however, the numbers will not work out.
We must look beyond the rhetoric for or against the Fair Tax. We must develop an understanding of how Fair Tax changes will impact our individual lives. We must look through the rhetoric and determine the motives of the activists that lobby for or against the Fair Tax and then make our own decisions. Regardless of choosing 23% or 30%, the dollars involved are the same when used in the proper equations. The Fair Tax is revenue neutral. The IRS will be replaced by another agency that has a less intrusive reach into our personal and business lives. This change will save individuals time and stress. The change will save businesses time and money. The vast majority of the people will benefit, only a small number of accountants, tax lawyers, and bookkeeping professors making their livelihood off the current inefficient system will suffer.
References: http://taxes.yahoo.com/rates.html, http://thestc.com/STrates.stm, http://www.nber.org/~taxsim/state-marginal/, Fair Tax Act of 2005
Read the bill. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Read the bill. You have no idea what you're talking about.So give us an example of non-family members living in the same household that wouldn't get their full FCA.
I am 100% sure it is not me who does not understand it. You are dumber than a box of rocks, and I really don't mean to insult rocks.
Maybe you didn't hear me.
no i was busy responding at the time and missed it
No, everyone does NOT qualify merely because they live in the same household. The bill is quite clear on the point.
If, say, Nightie and I were to be living in your house [shudder](assuming you were single here) neither of us would be qualified to receive the prebate - only you would assuming you were the "head of the household". There is only one residence for the family and the people residing there must be related per the bill for them to qualify for the inclusion in the prebate. You'd get it for the one-person family (you) but poor old Nightie and pigdog would not qualify ... nor would their cocker spaniel.
You need to read and understand what the bill says - I posted the applicable portion in #287. In post #299 I also explained how there could be other types of non-qualified persons residing in a non-family household (even as the head of household) which could disqualify anyone in the household from getting the prebate.
Your assumption that the Census Bureau has any sort of accurate record of illegal aliens isn't even reasonable. (In an earlier post you see to grasp to some degree how inaccurate the data can be - but I don't think you genuinely understand it is probably off by 10% or more in the case of illegal aliens. You must have missed the Bear Stearns study which was quite definitive using multiple methods of data verification and derivation as opposed to the C. B. numbers. The Bear Stearns paper came up with a well-reasoned count of 20 million illegal aliens - and that was a year ago. The 20 million figure is certainly closer to the truth than 8 million.
U. S. citizenship is only one of the requiremente - not the only one as you seem to think. Once again, read the bill (post #287). Then read #299 with more understanding. Your $480 B is way too high. As I saaid in #299, it's likely that my $369 B estimate is too high even.
If, say, Nightie and I were to be living in your house [shudder](assuming you were single here) neither of us would be qualified to receive the prebate - only you would assuming you were the "head of the household". There is only one residence for the family and the people residing there must be related per the bill for them to qualify for the inclusion in the prebate. You'd get it for the one-person family (you) but poor old Nightie and pigdog would not qualify ... nor would their cocker spaniel.You are just flat out wrong. AG, tell him.
U. S. citizenship is only one of the requiremente - not the only one as you seem to think.Citizenship is not a requirement for the FCA. Are you mistaken or lying?
If, say, Nightie and I were to be living in your house [shudder](assuming you were single here) neither of us would be qualified to receive the prebate - only you would assuming you were the "head of the household". There is only one residence for the family and the people residing there must be related per the bill for them to qualify for the inclusion in the prebate. You'd get it for the one-person family (you) but poor old Nightie and pigdog would not qualify ... nor would their cocker spaniel.The FCA goes to "qualified families," not households or residences. A "qualified family" is defined as "all family members sharing a common residence." There is no language in the bill that says different "qualified families" can have the same residence. In your example we would each be deemed a "qualified family" even though we had the same residence. We would each get the full FCA.
OK, let me be more precise - "lawful resident" rather than U. S. citizen. I was mistaken. The "lawful resident" requirement, though, is still only one of the requirements. See the bill for others.
Thanks, that's helpful and the example I gave was wrong.
I should have defined Nightie and I as illegal aliens which, of course would be a different situation and would allow only the host (assuming HE met the requirements) to get the prebate for himself.
Certainly there are, Nightie. Take the case of a lawful resident with a valid SSN who has two illegal aliens living with him. The host would qualify for the prebate and the two guests would not.
They qualify but only if they also have a valid SSN.
That is why I subtracted out 18 million people out from my calculation. That particular case is already accounted for. You were flat out wrong on your point about two non-married people living in at the same residence. My calculation stands.
"My calculation stands."
No, it doesn't. You're short on illegal aliens by at least 11 million as I indicated out earlier pointing to a more definitive study that the estimates you used.
I agreed that my example of Nightie and I living with you was wrong (whew) unless we were both illegal aliens or did not have valid SSNs. That surely makes neither your calculation nor your reasoning for it correct.
There will certainly be people in all three of those categories who do not qualify as required in the bill and you've made no realisic allowance for them and the adjustment you did make (a total of 18 million is clearly short of the mark as the Bear Stearns study shows). For example some of these people will be non-resident aliens that are not here lawfully but yet reside here in addition to the more commonly recognized illegal aliens. Some for example (students, etc.) will have overstayed their lawfully permitted time yet remain. The point is that using the Census Bureau's numbers (which in itself has errors) without adjustment for nonqualifiers yields figures that are much too high. I still like my $369 B as being more realistic while I think yours is not sufficiently corrected to adjust for non-qualifiers.
If the Census Bureau numbers are off by over 100% as they were in the number of illegal immigrants from south of the border, it's hardly rational to think that their number for specifying other sorts on non-citizen residents is any more accurate. The fact is - they simply haven't a handle on those numbers but they are CLEARLY greater than those you used.
In any event it doesn't really matter since anyone receiving the prebate will merely be receiving a refund of his tax money paid (or to be paid) and it is NOT an entitlement. As it is, the money goes right back to the taxpayer as a refund so trying to set any sort of number on it isn't meaningful as an expenditure - no more so than trying to fix a dollar amount on the income tax refunds of April 15. They are both refunds.
I shorted nothing. If there are 100 million illegal aliens in this country it makes no difference. They were not included in the census number. I subtracted off 18 million people who were non-citizens. Apparently I should have only subtracted off 9 million if legal residents qualify for the prebate.
It goes to everyone, including bums on the street who will pay next to nothing in sales tax. That is not their money. That is money taken from me and given to them in the form of a government check, which is an entitlement by all three legal defintions of entitlement.
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.