Posted on 01/14/2008 6:51:54 AM PST by K-oneTexas
COLUMN: The FairTax Promotes Economic Equality Submitted by on 01-13-08, 10:16 pm | Updated on 01-13-08, 10:35 pm |
by Thomas Davis
President John F. Kennedy once argued that our tax system “reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment and risk-taking.” Unfortunately, there has not been much improvement since JFK's presidency.
In fact, the tax code has become more complicated and burdensome. Since 1954, the number of words in the IRS regulations has increased by 939 percent. Just consider, how much time do you, or more likely your parents, spend preparing taxes? Or how much money do your parents spend having an accountant prepare your family's taxes? And how much time does a company spend making business decisions with respect to the tax code?
The answer is astounding: Economists estimate that we spend over $200 billion every year and about 5.8 billion hours complying with the tax code. American companies spend another $200-300 billion making business decisions based on tax implications. The average American spends twenty-seven hours preparing his or her income tax forms, and almost 45% of tax compliance costs are directly incurred by individuals.
While the current situation is complicated, the proposed solution is simple. It's called the FairTax. Some of the nation's most eminent economists and businesspeople have researched and developed a system applying a national sales tax of 23% on all goods and services at the retail level. In return, no more income tax. No more corporate income tax. No more payroll taxes, gift tax, alternative minimum tax, self-employment tax, capital gains tax…you get the picture. By the way, no more embedded tax in the goods and services you currently purchase, which averages around 22%.
Whether you realize it or not, the cost of corporate income taxes, payroll taxes and other taxes have been factored into the price of the goods and services you purchase. So when politicians try to tax what they deem to be greedy businesses by assessing higher corporate income taxes, those taxes are actually passed on to you, the consumer. By eliminating embedded taxes, the prices of what you buy after applying the 23% consumption tax would hardly change from current prices. The difference is that you bring home your entire paycheck and that tax is transparently assessed at the end, not through an onerous and bureaucratic system applied within a price tag.
And don't worry; this simplified system is revenue neutral. The government will collect as much money using the FairTax as it does under the current system, having no effect on current ability to fund government programs. Actually, economists expect economic growth to be around 10.5% for the first year, effectively increasing the government's revenue.
Under the FairTax, you would get your entire paycheck and would only pay tax on what you consume, encouraging Americans to do something we do not do well — save. In order to make the FairTax fair, all people would receive a prebate, or advanced rebate, that reimburses them for tax paid up to the poverty line. In other words, you only pay tax for living beyond your necessities.
Without a corporate tax, America will encourage companies to come back to the United States, providing new jobs for Americans. Without embedded taxes factored into the price of a product, American companies can export goods and sell them at prices lower than foreign products. While the benefits are numerous and the drawbacks are few, I encourage you to question the FairTax Act of 2007. Challenge it. Look for shortfalls. But don't forget to take the time to find credible answers. Read The FairTax Book by Neal Boortz and Congressman John Linder. Visit FairTax.org. Search the Web for scholarly criticism. You will see that the FairTax stands for innovation and equality. Do you?
Agreed, there would be some short-term inflation. And everyone who isn't living hand-to-mouth will hang fire and wait for prices to stabilize. The market can take it from there. You'll see a dip in sales of durable goods, homes and cars, etc. It won't last.
followed by a complete economic crash as our economic enemies make sure oil goes to $200/bbl and they call about $1 trillion in US debt.
You are vastly overestimating both the power and the unity of our "economic enemies." For the sake or argument, let's suppose that every country that has oil cuts production. Won't happen, ut let's suppose, just for s--ts and giggles. Suppose that not a single one of those countries ramps up production to take advantage of the skyrocketing price. Let's assume that they all stay in lockstep, and no one breaks rank. It's absurd, but for sake of argument, let's stipulate all of that.
Then the oil-producing countries are cutting their own throats just so they can bleed on our shoes. They will not survive the wrath of their own people when the common folks' bellies are empty. They would be killing the proverbial goose that lays all those golden eggs.
The USA is the locomotive at the head of the global money train; cut yourself off from then engine, and the locomotive rolls ahead while the train of cars behind rolls back downhill to a catastrophe.
We have billions of acre of grain. Vast fruited plains. If need be, and if it's cost-effective, we can run our cars on ethanol or biodiesel. At no price point can you eat petroleum. the USA is the breadbasket of the world. Bottom line: You cut our energy, we cut your food. Capisce?
Sorry for the misdirect. Appropriate ping sent.
It makes no sense at all.
Many prominent independent economists (ones not paid by the AFFT) are saying the same thing about the FT - but are being shouted down by angry mobs like the AGW crazies go after "deniers"
“if they don’t put the fair tax and elimination of the income tax in the same bill”
This is not possible since the 16th amenmdment allowing the income tax can only be repealed by 2/3 ratification of the states. If you think that’s easy, just ask the Equal rights amendment people who currently have 35 of the 38 states needed, and are for the moment stuck on that number......
Hey...in US history, income tax was voted in to fund WWI, if I’m not mistaken.
Jorgenson's Final Report to Americans for Fair Taxation (In part)
5. Since producers would no longer pay taxes on profits or other forms of capital income under the NRST and workers would no longer pay taxes on wages, prices received by producers, shown in the sixth chart, would fall by an average of twenty percent
Strange, very strange -- QUITE RECENTLY he posted this:
The gross misrepresentation continues. That number, which the fairtaxers paid for, includes taxes paid by employees, according to Dr. Jorgenson who did the study for them. In fact those taxes paid by employees, represent the majority of the 22% embedded taxes that the study found. Taxes paid by corporation and their share of the payroll tax only adds about 7% to the cost of the product. It is all smoke and mirrors. Those embedded taxes can not come out of the product unless employees agree to take a cut in pay, which ain't gonna happen.Price go up significantly under the fairtax after the 30% sales tax is added on the price.
4 posted on 01/14/2008 6:59:57 AM PST by Always Right
Yep. Strange, very strange.
The infrastructure is in place. Today, most states have an income tax; the feds do much of the bookkeeping. Abolish the IRS, and there's your pool of bean-counters -- they will go to work for the states, which will then assume their salaries.As near as I can see by your sign in date and since you're guessing (or wishing) at what the Fairatx is, between the 2 of us you are the new one to the Fairtax.
You didn't read the testimony from the Texas tax collector and you haven't read the bill...when you have, let me know.
If and when the time comes who do you think will be listened to about their needs, state tax collectors or you?
So which part confused you? Jorgenson said 20% and AR said 22%?...What’s your point exactly?
The CPI as a measure of inflation is for rubes like you who think the government is giving you any decent information.Yea, heaven forbid we should include major commodities in "The most commonly used measure of core inflation"...who knows what we might find out?
Tell it to "the rubes" at The Federal Reserve Bank Of Cleveland pinhead.
CPI excluding food and energy.
The most commonly used measure of core inflation is the CPI excluding food and energy, published by the BLS. [The term "core CPI" is often used to refer to this measure.] This measure of core inflation systematically excludes food and energy prices because, historically, they have been highly volatile. More specifically, food and energy prices are widely thought to be subject to large changes that often fail to persist and frequently represent relative price changes. In many instances, large movements in food and energy prices arise because of supply disruptions such as drought or OPEC-led cutbacks in production. [You can find core CPI data for the United States here.]
Today we have marxists wrapped in flags, founder quotes, and patriotism pimping the fairtax because "they know what's good for you, even if they have yo kill you to prove it"
When and where did I ascribe "economic disaster" to anyone or anything?
Things are good. I'm not going hungry or thirsty. I have sturdy shelter and warm clothes. If there is any complaint, it's that I suffer from too much abundance. I'm getting fat and lazy.
Things are good. They can be better, We can make them better. Gasoline is a good fuel; we can find better ones. We pay little in taxes and get good from them; we could pay less and get more. What is life, if it is not driven to improve?
A man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a Heaven for?
Humans are restless creatures. We can never crest one hill without seeing the next. We sarcely had a footprint on the moon before we set our sights on Mars.
When Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay stood atop Mt. Everest,I am sure they felt achievement and satisfaction, They'd done what most people said could not be done. But I am equally sure that they felt disappointment, because there was nothing left to climb.
Alexander looked across his realm and wept, because there were no more worlds to conquer.
Name one. Bruce Bartlett. Name another. You can't.
Then make it better, don’t risk all the chips on an untested crap shoot.
You don’t bother pinging the other member of the conversation... Oh My!!!
(double bagger barf alert)
LOL! Too young to remember the 70's?
This is a walk in the park compared to that. The economy is weakening. The risk now, with inflation already so low, is deflation. Watch and see.
I see others have already replied to the above sentence. It is wrong, you know.
When did you stop reading the financial pages looie? It is reported both ways - every month.
Me. I'm the one toting the freight. I'm the one paying them.
One of many, of course, Point is, it is taxpayers -- not tax collectors -- who pay the piper and call the tune.
You didn't read the testimony from the Texas tax collector
You need to leave my house right now, or you might get shot.
If you are not in my house, I can't imagine how you know what I have and have not read.
I read the deputy assistant deputy sub-comptroller's testimony from top to bottom, I did not find it convincing. I'm catching a whiff of elitisim in my nostrils; "If you disagree you can't see or don't understand."
I read it. I understood it. I grokked its fullness. I disagreed.
Who am I to disagree? Just a mere citizen. I have no more weight than the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker, the doctor, the lawyer, or the Indian chief. I'm just a citizen. ANd last I head, we still ran the joint.
I ask neither your approval nor your permission. Neither is yours or the Texas Comptroller's to give or deny.
Sales tax is untested? There is no more tested, tried and true model of taxation. Income tax is the new kid n this particular block.
Which is what drives everyone bats^^t with the current system. There are so many rules for retirement plans it is unconscionable. Roth, traditional, 401(k), 403(b), defined contribution, defined benefit, limitations on contributions, top heavy and highly compensated rules and on and on. Because of all these regulations most retirement plans have limited investment choices because they have to be offered as "products" in order to comply with the IRS.
And who pays for all this? It comes directly from your investment returns. If you have negative returns you pay anyway.
Imagine a world where you get the same effect - tax deferral - only here it is TAX FREE. You don't have to pay providers for the service, you just have to pay some mutual fund company, or a wide array of mutual fund companies, a management fee for your investment.
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.