Save America with the ‘Fair Tax Act’

A "Fair Tax" can completely fund the federal government, Social Security and Medicare!

You, the taxpayers of America burdened with an income tax that is costly, wasteful and sinking America into inevitable bankruptcy. All current forms of federal taxation would end! You would keep 100 percent of your paycheck. You control how you spend your paycheck. It's your money. You make the decisions as to how you want to spend your money.

The Fair Tax would create more jobs and give the USA a level playing field when selling overseas. United States Senator John Linder (R-Georgia) is sponsoring the "Fair Tax Act of 2005." If enacted by Congress, it would accomplish all of the above. Simple. Easy. And affordable.

To join the "Fair Tax" movement in America, just sign the "Economic Freedom & Fairness" Petition supporting forward-thinking solutions. Go to www.grassfire.net and liberate the working class of taxpayers. Grassfire is trying to give the working class the same kind of freedom America's founders gave to those who joined the American Revolution in 1776 with the "Declaration of Independence." We won the Revolutionary War, but have lost our country since the 16th Amendment (income tax) became "Law" in 1913.

Increasingly, the drug trade within the US is run by gangs in Mexico. Do you think profits stay within the US or are exported south of the border?

Not a valid argument for maintaining the status quo, i.e. income tax and the IRS.

Criminals don't follow the rules anyway, which is why they are criminals.

Indulge me this: how does the present system keep capital generated through illegal means in the US and, for bonus points, why will the FairTax send gangs scrambling to send their ill-gotten gains offshore or south of the border?

The property tax can only increase a small amount and in fact my property taxes decreased for a few years in the 90's during a brief downturn in values...also, the "assessed value" isn't even close to the actual value, it's usually WAY lower.

The assesed value has always been lower than the market value. What I'm saying is that the low taxes paid by my parents can be passed on.

Do you think if say illegals all started paying taxes your tax burden would decrease as a result?...I don't.

That is the FairTaxers argument. Obviously the difference between what the federal government spends and what it collects is borrowed, so if rates are lowered or not doesn't necessarily depend on what is collected, but what politicians decide.

The assesed value has always been lower than the market value. What I'm saying is that the low taxes paid by my parents can be passed on.
I don't know about that because change of title can change the tax status but even if it is true, so what? Who's harmed?

Not everyone earning exactly the same amount of income pays exactly the same amount of tax either...Two people go to a dealership one pays more for their car than the identical car of the other, one pays more in sales tax than the other, both cars have the same value...so what?

Criminals don't follow the rules anyway, which is why they are criminals.

Exactly!

It is the FairTaxers who make the argument that if the bill is passed, suddenly black marketers will be paying their FairShare, not me.

Indeed that will change - completely - as there will no longer BE embedded taxes under the FairTax, NONE!!!
So what does that amount to today in pigdogland? 0.87%...3.75%?...

What's todays number for "embedded/hidden taxes that aren't taxes at all" pigdog? Oh wait maybe todays meaning of hidden and embedded are different than yesterday's

pigdog:

"You Squirrels seem to be munching on a bad bunch of nuts that affect your reasoning. You've completely missed the point that the "hidden taxes" are not taxes at all, but artificially-increased prices caused solely by the business income tax and compliance costs.
The "hidden taxes" themselves (since they are not taxes but unproductive price increases) do not need to be replaced by a revenue neutral FairTax. Instead they are removed - POOF! Gone!! That's why prices will decline with the elimination of income taxes. The income taxes formerly paid to he IRS (but not "hidden taxes" which are not so paid) are the ones involved in revenue neutrality......

pigdog:

...."The amount of taxes collected from the higher prices under the embedded taxes of the present system are actually quite small. I gave an example of a $100 purchase that ended up with (very generously) a $3.75 tax revenue amount which, under the FairTax, would have been $23.00.

pigdog:

"The taxes embedded (hidden) in the prices of things by the cascading mechanism I've continually illustrated are not part of the revenue neutral concept at all, but are part of the inflated prices paid by consumers IN ADDITION TO THE "NORMAL" INCOME TAXES THEY PAY.
That's why many call them hidden taxes, Looey. They cannot be easily seen and are not normally recognized as tax revenue - since they are not part of the normal tax revenue from the consumer. The revenue neutral terminology comes from revenue raised by the normal income taxes (not the hidden taxes which just boost prices).

So we don't know how much they are because no one benefits from "hidden taxes which aren't really taxes at all but are used to artificially boost prices for no apparent reason and somehow that money escapes taxes and taxable profits because, you know, they're "hidden" DUH!

"The taxes embedded (hidden) in the prices of things by the cascading mechanism I've continually illustrated

Oh yea where is that table you can't call a table but instead it's a spreadsheet thing that used to be a "cascading mechanism"?...

I've got to see if I can locate your "cascading mechanism". We could all use a good laugh on this otherwise somber day.

"Only the profits of the business subject to the income tax times the businesses tax rate represent the taxes paid to Uncle"

And the employee FICA taxes? Are they not paid by the consumer and passed on to Uncle? And the employee federal income taxes that are withheld? Are they not paid by the consumer and passed on to Uncle?

What are you talking about? These are taxes paid TODAY by the consumer and passed on by the corporation to Uncle, yes?

For the 11th time, I don't care what happens AFTER the Fair Tax is implemented. I'm talking about TODAY. Stay with TODAY. Not after the Fair Tax. TODAY. Get it?

"Under FairTax, those of us in the system will have more disposable income."

ONLY IF your employer gives it to you. You may continue to receive your current take-home pay while your employer uses that money to reduce the price of his goods.

The Fair Tax does NOT mandate that YOU get that money. Sure, you may. And if you do, prices (after the Fair Tax is added) will rise.

So yes, you have more disposable income. You'll need it to buy those more expensive goods.

pigdog is hiding behind semantics. His definition of "hidden taxes" are those taxes assessed on and paid by the corporation -- essentially the corporate income tax. Sometime he's throws in compliance costs (as hidden "taxes" -- go figure). Sometimes he leaves those out.

The employer portion of FICA is nowhere to be found in his version of hidden taxes. But he uses all of the above when discussing post-Fair Tax price reduction.

Trying to get him to admit that corporate income taxes plus the 15.3% of FICA taxes plus the employee federal income tax withholding (for an average total of 22% of the price of the product) are hidden taxes paid by the buyer and sent by the corporation to the federal government is impossible.

He can't admit that. If he does, then the additional- money-we'll-get-from-the-criminal myth will go away. So will the it's-only-23%-because-the-taxpayer-base-is-larger myth.

There's no semantics involved. I've related to you and others several times that the definition of "hidden taxes" used by Boortz is not a good one since it covers all wage related income taxes and employee fica. I've said - repeatedly - that those costs are not included in what I (and many others on this thread) refer to as hidden taxes.

Instead what's said - and I've repeatedly stated this (which you've either not noticed or perhaps overlooked) - is that the term "hidden taxes" as many of us use it includes some part of business income taxes, employer portion of fica, compliance costs, opportunity costs, etc. and are more correctly called "hidden tax COSTS", but we often shorten that to say merely "hidden taxes".

The hidden taxes as described in The FairTax Book will most likely largely remain in prices as the employee wages and employee fica portion remain in product costs (as I've also related to you before). You seem to not grasp - or perhaps not wish to admit this for some reason.

"The employer portion of FICA is nowhere to be found in his version of hidden taxes. But he uses all of the above when discussing post-Fair Tax price reduction. "

If you intend both of these sentences to refer to me, then you are completely incorrect as I've repeatedly described what I call "hidden taxes" (really "hidden tax costs" as I've said) to include the ER fica portion and I do not use the employee income tax/fica withholding in any part of the price reduction due to income tax removal.

The money in your bogus lawyer example was money paid by the illegal guy to the lawyer for his services and it was the lawyer paying the tax due to his services, not the illegal guy. In fact as I pointed out, not only did you erroneously double the effective tax rate of your example, you doubled the amount the lawyer paid as well since he paid only $14,000 in income tax (as opposed to fica which HE benefits from, not the illegal guy). So your example is intentionally grossly distorted and your observations in this post are way off he mark.

So your definition of "hidden tax costs" or hidden taxes" is some part of business income taxes, employer portion of fica, compliance costs, opportunity costs, etc. Now, on average, what percent of the price of the product is due to this? Is it 3.75%? Is it 9%? Or some other number?

Second question. If the employee portion of fica and federal income tax withholding are not included in hidden tax costs or hidden taxes, what are they? Doesn't the buyer pay these taxes when they buy the product? Aren't these taxes, therefore, hidden taxes?

"The money in your bogus lawyer example was money paid by the illegal guy to the lawyer for his services and it was the lawyer paying the tax due to his services, not the illegal guy."

So if I go to the store today, buy an item for $100, the store adds $6 sales tax, and I pay them $106., I'm not actually paying that tax? You're saying the store is paying that tax when they forward my $6 to the state?

Do you realize how absolutely ridiculous you sound when you make these arguments of yours? Do you actually expect to be taken seriously on this forum with comments like that?

"you doubled the amount the lawyer paid as well since he paid only $14,000 in income tax (as opposed to fica which HE benefits from, not the illegal guy)."

The lawyer benefits from the fica. Fine. I don't disagree. But who really paid into fica in my example? The same person who paid his income taxes. The drug dealer. The lawyer was only a conduit.

Let's say we did away with taxes altogether. Let's say the federal government was financed by export tariffs.

How much would our lawyer charge the illegal guy to end up with the same amount of disposable income? About 30% less is the answer. Meaning that the federal government is collecting that hidden tax today. I rest my case.

You seem to have a bit of a reading problem. The hidden taxes that will be removed when the income tax is gone is (per stipulation with your naysayer buds) 9% even though many FairTax supporters believe it will be greater. That's been stated over ... and over ... and over on these threads.

The employee portion of fica and their income tax withholding are included in costs of the thing and, when purchasing for consumption, the amounts are part of the costs of the product or service which may (or may not) eventually lead to income taxes being paid if the business manages a profit. At that point it is the business paying its taxes even though the money comes (as always) from the consumer. Trying to pretend that such amounts paid as tax by the business are actually the consumer's taxes is disingenuous. They aren't as others have pointed out to you on this thread - and which you apparently don't understand. These merely raise prices to the consumer and a good part of that (but not necessarily all) will remain when the income tax goes away due to the effect of "sticky wages".

And now a question for you. Why have you not done as I requested and make use of the FairTax effective tax rate calculator and posted your own effective tax rate on the thread as I requested to help you with your "baseball bat" example in #917. the calculator is completely anonymous and none of your information is available to others - so what is your fear of using it???

"The hidden taxes that will be removed when the income tax is gone is ..."

Whoa, whoa, whoa! That wasn't my question. That wasn't even close to my question.

And you say I have a reading problem?

Let's try this again. Your definition of "hidden tax costs" or hidden taxes" is some part of business income taxes, employer portion of fica, compliance costs, opportunity costs, etc. Now, on average, what percent of the price of the product TODAY is due to this? Is it 3.75%? Is it 9%? Or some other number?

... and your case rest very uneasily inceed since the sales tax of 6% you cite is YOUR tax and the business merele collects and forwards it to the state (though at present they are not paid to do so but must bvear that cost themselves ... an unfunded mandate). Under the FairTax, there ARE no nufunded mandates and the merchant collecting and forwarding the tax is paid to do so.

Your attempt at derision fails also since he lawyer in your bogus example is paying his own taxes and not just forwarding the illegal guy's taxes to the government as in your sales tax example. And your "no tax" example is meaningless, too, since the most likely result would be for the lawyer's fee to DROP with the removal of taxes - just as will happen with the embedded taxes we've been talking about to help reduce prices under the FairTax - and increase the taxpayer's purchasing power,

Now answer the question I just posed to you in #1136!!!

"Trying to pretend that such amounts paid as tax by the business are actually the consumer's taxes is disingenuous."

I never said it was the consumer's taxes. I said it was the consumer's money that paid these hidden taxes. The company is merely a conduit and forwards this money to the federal government every pay period on Form 941.

"These merely raise prices to the consumer and a good part of that (but not necessarily all) will remain when the income tax goes away due to the effect of "sticky wages"."

Humor me. IF they all remained, what percentage of the price of the product would they be?

Why be so obtuse??? The answer WAS clearly stated in #1136 as the 9% described there.

And you do seem to have a reading problem since you haven't answered my question from #1136. Instead, you seem to think this is some sort of a game that allows you to make up far-fetched hypothetical examples, pretend they're real, and then take potshots at any FairTax supporter who might respond.

As opposed to unrealistic examples such as those you pose, I've offered to use your own real FairTax effective tax rate to see how you would benefit (or not) in comparison to the income tax - yet you keep ducking out. Why are you afraid of this since you obviously support the income tax??? If it's so great, let's see how it applies in your situation. Just respond to my original #917 (which, you'll note, uses the 9% hidden tax/embedded tax cost figure).

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.