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?
;^)
Eh? (confused, here). Who misspelt a screen name?
In veno, veritas
Condition of contest, I'm afraid.
Technically, in any case, it would have to be ''in vino veritas'', no comma, because the comma was not introduced as a punctuation mark until more than 1000 years after Horace. However, we insert one these days for consonance with English grammatical considerations.
BTW, if you haven't read Lynne Truss' book, ''Eats, Shoots and Leaves'', you owe it to yourself to do so. It is simply hilarious if you happen to be a grammar fan.
I've seen it but haven't picked it up yet. My current pet peeve is "literally".
Every time an idiot misuses it on the TV, I want to throw something through the screen, literally!
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.