Save America with the ‘Fair Tax Act’

The Courier ^ | August 31,2006 | Gordon Bishop

[Man50D]

Abolish the federal income tax!

No more taxes on savings and investments!

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

You control how much you spend!

So what are we waiting for?

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.

It's the best way to downsize government without disrupting the economy.

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.

[pigdog]

There have been a number of examples on numerous threads showing the comparative purchasing power between the two tax systems. You may not like the way they show up your beloved income tax as being second-rate (if even that) but they happen to be correct.

The numbers come from actual CBO income tax rates and actual FairTax prebates. The rest is simple arithmetic. The actual effective tax rate a taxpayer has under the FairTax will be a function of his own consumption (and he won't have zero control over having it confiscated by withholding before he gets it as at present).

Read it and weep since the FairTax will become our tax law. There's no other rational choice despite you naysayers.

[Always Right]

Believe me, I've nothing to envy.

For once I do believe you.

[RobFromGa]

They happen to be hogwash. And anyone with half an ounce of common sense would know that the average American is NOT going to save over half of his federal taxes, as you claim.

You don't even need a calculator to say "NOT POSSIBLE".

[pigdog]

Uh-huh!!! And why do you think that the guy in the illegal economy "paid" the tax??? His lawyer did, not the drugee. And if he weren't entangled with the legal system - which probably describes most in the drub biz - how much tax did the lawyer pay; how much did the dealer pay???

A pointless anecdote representing almost 0.0000000000001% of income tax "contributions". In addition, if the lawyer has only a $90,000 yearly practice (less taxes) I'd say he should get into another line of work (since he may be shot when he loses a case).

In addition, this same illegal economy guy might have purchased $4,000,000 (or more) in things which under the income tax would have "contributed" (perhaps) $160,000 under the income tax but which if all were taxable under the Fairtax would have "contributed" $920,000.

[RobFromGa]

His lawyer did, not the drugee.

If the drugee didn't exist the income wouldn't exist and the tax wouldn't be paid. How ignorant about business and taxation are you?

[robertpaulsen]

Illinois instituted the state sales tax in 1933 at 2%. Today, it's 6.25%.

Oh, and in 1969, Illinois added a state income tax, now at 3% of gross wages. Florida has that to look forward to, and I'd be willing to bet that the Fair Tax will NOT be the end of it at the federal level.

[pigdog]

And anyone with half an ounce of common sense would realize that his effective tax rate depends largely upon his own consumption practices. He could easily cut his taxes dramatically since keep in mind there will be millions and millions of new taxpayers who have basically had a free ride (for which you and I have had to pay so it's hardly "free) under the income tax. These "newbies" will be making up the difference and then some.

Anyone can certainly see what their own effective tax rate is by using the pafairtax website. Try it ... you won't like it!!!

[lucysmom]

And you're the one claiming that nothing can be predicted??? "Ain't gonna happen???"

I never said that "nothing can be predicted". We predict all the time, sometimes accurately and often not. To make the prediction that a 30% tax on all goods and services will be so popular that states will jump on the band wagon is absurd. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

IMHO, you are so wedded to the idea of the FairTax and its promised lower effective rate that you either will not, or can not see its obvious flaws. That puts you at a great disadvantage in these discussions. No wonder you are forced to fall back on name calling.

Read and learn

http://www.governing.com/gpp/2003/gp3intro.htm

[balrog666]

Bob Martinez signed into law a bill taxing nearly all services statewide, after a sales tax study commission had recommended the plan. When advertisers and other newly taxed groups opposed the law, political turmoil ensued, and Martinez withdrew his support. He requested that the legislature rescind the law, which it did. That experience largely has kept Florida—and states throughout the country—far from considering an extensive services tax.

Yep. And that was a very small 6% (external, of course) tax rate.

[pigdog]

That would leave the lawyer unemployed. Perhaps he could become a salesman - do you need a third salesman to help you out? A fourth?? A fifth?? (sorry about that). A sixth???

[pigdog]

I've made no such prediction at all. In fact if you'd actually read my posts (and the bill, of course) you'd know that I've always said the decision is for the individual state to make.

So, let's see, it's only OK for you to make predictions but anyone prediction about something you oppose is, somehow, both stupid and evil??? Hmmm!!

Oh ... and it's not a "30%" tax either - but I thought you knew that. I forgot you've not read he bill.

[robertpaulsen]

"In addition, this same illegal economy guy might have purchased $4,000,000 (or more) in things which under the income tax would have "contributed" (perhaps) $160,000 under the income tax"

The average contribution the drug dealer makes, according to Mr. Boortz, is 22%. Your 4% is not even on the charts. It's unsupported. It's a joke.

My example is pretty darn close for the service sector. And we are a service economy. If only way you can poke holes in my example is to point out how little my lawyer makes, you're hopelessly ignorant.

[lucysmom]

It's obscene that old Americans with limited means lose property to the government because of property tax problems.

I agree. California attempted to rectify that with the passage of prop. 13. While that solution has been a boon to people like my parents, who pay less than $2,000 in property taxes on property that has a market value somewhat in excess of $2 million, it has been an overall failure.

But California’s voters did the most damage to their fiscal health a quarter-century ago, when they hog-tied the local property tax with Proposition 13, thus requiring California to spend an ever-growing portion of its revenue bailing out strapped localities. Since 1978, the property tax rate has been fixed at 1 percent and increases in assessed property value limited to 2 percent a year, as long as the property remains in the same hands. Local-option sales taxes are limited as well, and so cities and counties are forced to rely on cash from Sacramento.

http://www.governing.com/gpp/2003/gp3ca.htm

It has also created a system that is grossly unequal.

I don't know what the solution is, but prop. 13 wasn't it.

[xzins]

We pay for way to much in our government.

Taxes should be based on the budget that needs to be met. If we need to raise $10 to meet the budget, then the taxes should be designed to raise $10. the easiest and most efficient way possible. Someone should always be asking why we're spending $10 instead of $9.

[pigdog]

Sorry, Looey, it's 23% ti "added on" except that it really is not that much since it is only the effective tax rate added on that is actually paid by the taxpayer.

Your Chicken Little tactics fall short once again.

Did I mention "effective tax rate"???

[pigdog]

No, not at all. If you get that impression it merely shown you don't understand effective tax rates. You'll give he checkout clerk the full 23% ti tax on the purchase BUT you will already have received the prebate or soon will so that in a period of time you will actually only have paid the effective tax rate our of your own income (considering the prebate as additional to your income).

The effective tax rate will be much less that the marginal rate (the 23% ti shown on your receipt).

[lucysmom]

Taxes should be based on the budget that needs to be met. If we need to raise $10 to meet the budget, then the taxes should be designed to raise $10. the easiest and most efficient way possible. Someone should always be asking why we're spending $10 instead of $9.

Pay as you go is preferable, IMHO, but not always possible or desirable. Currently, we are saddled with not only budget deficits but a massive total debt and interest on the debt. In any case, its been abandoned.

The problem is that no matter how we decide to raise taxes, each method is effected by economic conditions. After 911, Florida had a sales tax shortfall due to decreased spending. The dot com implosion resulted in California's budget crisis, etc. There just isn't one elegant, reliable solution.

[pigdog]

If that's what "Mr. Boortz" means, he's incorrect. That percentage encompasses income and payroll withholding taxes which will most probably go to the employee as increased wages and remain in prices as costs pretty much as at present. Or, in the case of your lawyer example, into the pocket of the lawyer increasing his takehome from $62,230 back up to $90,000. I suspect he'd like that.

The illegal economy guy OTOH, will now be paying not $4 on his $100 purchase, but $23. I suspect he won't like that so much ... but the things he buys will have dropped somewhat in price.

[RobFromGa]

pigdog post 88:"A lot of people (including you) do not understand that cascaded tax costs are a real thing and affect prices right now in everything one might buy (and there is no option of not paying the tax when you purchase). That's why those with existing savings accounts will be hit with the additional equivalent of a tax in the form of embedded tax costs that run something like 20-25% of the price of everything they buy and will be no worse off under thr FairTax. YOU may not wish to admit this (or your Squirrel buddies) - in fact, you can't - but most economists certainly are aware of the mechanism. You can argue about whether it's 10, 20, or 50% ... but it's there and boosts prices right across the board."

[robertpaulsen]

"You'll give he checkout clerk the full 23% ti tax on the purchase ..."

Ohhhhh. I see.

So, when you said, "That $100 baseball bat that you have to earn $114 to buy (or more in higher income tax brackets) will now fall to $91.00 plus the FairTax or $98.12 ... and that's all you have to earn to buy it", you really didn't mean that the bat would actually "cost" me $98.12. You "think" it might cost me $98.12. It's an estimate. A guess. A maybe. An "it depends".

Well, certainly that's much more palatable than telling me the truth -- that I now have to give the checkout clerk $118.18 for a bat that used to cost me $100.

And even that is assuming the bat manufacturer is going to lower his price 9% to the wholeseller who will lower their price by 9% to the retailer who will lower their price by 9% to the consumer. Sure. Count on it. Hell of a plan.

"If you get that impression it merely shown you don't ..."

Oh, now why would I get the impression that the bat wouldn't have the full 23% ti tax on it? Golly.