Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Imagine receiving 100% of your paycheck!
townhall.com ^ | August 27, 2004 | Neal Boortz

Posted on 08/26/2004 11:05:33 PM PDT by n-tres-ted

Two weeks ago a man stood up at a George Bush campaign appearance in Florida to ask about a piece of legislation known as HR25. Many, including myself, were pleased to hear Bush respond with some positive thoughts about the Fair Tax plan, a movement to replace the federal income tax with a national retail sales tax.

Washington is a city of inertia, and right now the inertia belongs to our present method of funding the operations of our government, the income tax. Politicians will not easily surrender a funding mechanism that lends itself so well to political demagoguery and which can be used to reward political allies and punish enemies.

The Fair Tax plan deserves a thorough public examination and debate. John Kerry seems dedicated to making sure this doesn’t happen. Soon after Bush cited the national retail sales tax as something worthy of further exploration, Kerry stepped forward with the typical class warfare rhetoric of the left. Acting as if he actually knew what was he was talking about (he didn’t), Kerry announced that the Fair Tax would amount to the largest increase in the tax burden on poor and middle income Americans in our history.

John Kerry was wrong. He was either speaking out of ignorance, or he was deliberately lying about the Fair Tax proposal in order to gain a political advantage. A politician lying in order to gain political advantage --- imagine that.

This column is lengthier than the norm, but I promise you that if you will invest the time it takes to read it you will be well on your way to becoming yet another rabid supporter of the Fair Tax plan. You will know that the poor and middle income Americans would be the prime beneficiaries of the proposal. You may even organize your own neighborhood march on Washington to demand that HR25 receive a fair hearing. In the next two minutes I’m going to turn you into a HR25 Fair Tax zealot. Read on:

First … the briefest of overviews: Simply put, HR25 would provide for the repeal of the 16th Amendment (the income tax amendment) and the dismantling of the IRS. All personal and corporate income taxes would end, as would all payroll taxes. There would not be one cent of federal taxes of any nature taken out of your paychecks. No more Social Security taxes. No more Medicare taxes. You earn $2,000 a payday; you get $2,000 a payday. The federal government would be funded through a national sales tax on goods and services sold at the retail level. No taxes on investments. No taxes on savings. You only get taxed on what you spend at the retail level. Store your earnings in a shoebox if you wish. They won’t be taxed.

When originally proposed, calculations showed that the sales tax would have to be in the area of 23%. A complete economic study is now being completed that is expected to bring that total to under 20%. For the purposes of this column, we’ll stick with the 23% figure.

OK … let’s put on our sensitivity hats for a few minutes here and think of the consequences of the Fair Tax Act on our nation’s poor, poor, pitiful poor. After all, they can hardly afford a 23% sales tax when they’re living paycheck-to-paycheck in the first place, right?

Bear in mind that for the most part those whom we define as “poor” aren’t paying any income tax anyway. In fact, many of them are getting checks from the government; a form of outright income redistribution. The absurdly named Earned Income Tax Credit, for example. How can these people survive going from a no-tax situation to paying a 24% sales tax on all their retail purchases?

The implementation of the Fair Tax would fail in short order if, as the question presupposes, nothing were to change except that all of us would be paying today’s prices for a gallon of milk or a loaf of bread, plus a 23% sales tax. But … that’s would be far from the reality under the Fair Tax. Under the Fair Tax the poor won’t only survive, they’ll positively thrive! The Fair Tax could turn out to be the best poverty-fighting tool devised in this country since the concept of hard work.

Let’s begin by considering two realities.

First, remember, please, that the poor, along with everybody else, will no longer have Social Security taxes or Medicare taxes withheld from their paychecks. Whatever they earn, they get on payday. For the poor this means an immediate 12 to 15% increase in their earnings.

Second. Don’t forget the 22% in imbedded taxes. These embedded taxes exist in virtually everything poor Americans or any other Americans have to buy. These embedded taxes represent all of the corporate and business income taxes and payroll taxes that the companies involved in the production, manufacture, marketing, distribution and sale of the goods and services must pay in the course of business. As soon as these taxes are gone, and after the competitive forces of the free market work their magic consumers, including the poor, will be paying at least 20% less for virtually everything they buy. This includes such basics as food, clothing, shelter and transportation. Yes... they’ll have to pay the new national sales tax, but when you factor in the lower prices caused by the disappearance of the embedded taxes you’ll see that the total price paid for consumer goods in terms of real dollars will fall or will remain very nearly the same.

So … just considering these factors, the Fair Tax delivers a winning hand to people living in or near to what we call poverty. They get every penny they earn on payday, amounting to a 12 to 15% pay raise, and when you factor in the Fair Tax and the lower prices, they’re actually end up spending less of their money for a retail purchase than before. What John Kerry calls the greatest increase in the tax burden on the poor in the history of our country is, in reality, their greatest tax reduction.

You need a clearer picture? Pull out your calculator. Let’s say that a single mother with two children spends $45 a week on groceries. The removal of the 22% embedded tax would bring the price of those groceries down to $35.10. The sales tax at 23% would be $8.07. This brings the total price to $43.17. That’s less than would have paid under today’s tax system. This single mother, whom we’ll consider “poor,” has just received a 12% to 15% increase in her weekly paychecks, and she’s paying less at the grocery story for her basic necessities.

So far, so good. At this point you should be thoroughly convinced that the Fair Tax would actually benefit, rather than harm the poor. But, then again, maybe not. Here’s the convincer. Brace yourself for the knockout punch.

The Rebate

Under the Fair Tax plan every consumer, rich and poor alike, will receive a check or an electronic credit to their bank account from the federal government every single month equal to the sales tax that person or that family would be expected to pay on the purchase of the basic necessities of life for that month. The size of the monthly payment will be based on the government’s published poverty levels for various sized households.

Here’s an example of how the rebate payments would have worked in 2003.

Let’s say you’re a married couple with two children. The Fair Tax Act sets forth a formula for computing the poverty level, based on government figures, which negates any marriage penalty. If the Fair Tax Act had been law in 2003 you would have been granted an annual consumption allowance of $24,240. This is what the government would assume you would have had to spend during that one year to buy the basic necessities of life for your family. The sales tax on this amount would equal $5,575. The government would have rebated this amount to you in 12 equal monthly installments of $465. What about a single woman with one child? Her monthly rebate in 2003 would have been $232. The lowest payment would be to a single person with no dependents. That person would have received $172 per month.

Now … bear in mind, this rebate isn’t only paid to the poor. It is paid to everyone, rich and poor alike. The purpose here is to make sure that no American has to pay the Fair Tax sales tax on the basic necessities of life. Unlike the present income tax system, the Fair Tax treats each and every person in this country exactly the same. This, of course, presents somewhat of a problem to politicians who like to use the tax code to foment class distrust or outright warfare.

OK … let’s add it up for America’s lower income citizens:

1. They get their entire paycheck. 2. Even with the sales tax, and considering the drop in prices, they’ll be paying essentially the same or less for everything they buy. 3. They get a check from the federal government every month to rebate any sales taxes they had to pay on life’s basic necessities.

Are you beginning to see just how far off-base John Kerry was with his intemperate criticisms?

Though most of the poor don’t have what we would call complex tax returns, let’s also include the time these they (all of us, really) will save by not having to keep tax records or file tax returns.

If you’re looking for some reason to oppose the Fair Tax plan, you’re going to have to find a better excuse than its effect on the poor. John Kerry might find it politically expedient to demagogue the issue for votes, but now you know enough to know what he’s up to.

For more comprehensive information on The Fair Tax you can visit http://www.fairtax.org.

Neal Boortz is a lawyer and nationally syndicated radio talk show host.

©2004 Neal Boortz


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: boortz; fairtax; hr25; paycheck; taxes; taxreform
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 441-447 next last
To: Chilldoubt

Oh! BTW! In case you haven't already noticed, Willie Green has about as about the same level of economic knowledge as your average turnip.


301 posted on 08/27/2004 4:53:24 PM PDT by Bigun (IRSsucks@getridof it.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 298 | View Replies]

To: Bigun

well i just wanted to know why he differentiates tax costs incurred from other types of costs incurred when it comes to considering cost of doing business in pricing decisions...


302 posted on 08/27/2004 4:56:02 PM PDT by Chilldoubt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: Bigun

oh i thought you were calling me a turnip! you mean the other poster... that's not nice!


303 posted on 08/27/2004 4:56:58 PM PDT by Chilldoubt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: Chilldoubt
Yes indeed! The TRUTH is that there are only three places to which business costs can accrue.

1.Lower return on investment.

2. Reduced wages.

3. Higher product prices.

No other possibillities exsist and PLEASE note that in ALL cases it is individuals who wind up bearing the load.

304 posted on 08/27/2004 4:59:25 PM PDT by Bigun (IRSsucks@getridof it.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies]

To: Your Nightmare

Less sales revenue, less profit, less wage, still have employees, still have business.

You seem to have a real hard time grasping this concept.

Customers purchasing products provide those sales revenues from which the rest is financed.

305 posted on 08/27/2004 5:02:35 PM PDT by ancient_geezer (Equality, the French disease: Everyone is equal beneath the guillotine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 297 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer
Customers purchasing products provide those sales revenues from which the rest is financed.
So? That doesn't mean they are paying higher prices because of taxes. The business could make less profit or the business could pay it's employees less so the customer doesn't have pay more.
306 posted on 08/27/2004 5:19:21 PM PDT by Your Nightmare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 305 | View Replies]

To: Chilldoubt
but prior to a product entering the market, its price is affected by a retailer's costs (raw materials, utilities, wages, etc.)

Not at all. Price is solely determined by survey of market competition.
It is always independent of cost.
The objective is always to charge "as much as the market can bear" to maximimize profit.
Those who simply try to set price as cost plus a "reasonable markup" are idiots.

307 posted on 08/27/2004 5:19:33 PM PDT by Willie Green (Go Alan Go!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 298 | View Replies]

To: Bigun
No other possibillities exsist and PLEASE note that in ALL cases it is individuals who wind up bearing the load.
A little off topic, but, who bears the load when a government pays a tax?
308 posted on 08/27/2004 5:20:31 PM PDT by Your Nightmare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: n-tres-ted
"Imagine receiving 100% of your paycheck!"

I don't have to imagine that, I just have to ask my wife what it feels like to receive 100% of my paycheck.

309 posted on 08/27/2004 5:21:17 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez ( Even Jane Fonda apologized. Will you, John?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Your Nightmare
A little off topic, but, who bears the load when a government pays a tax?

The individuals who fund the government.

310 posted on 08/27/2004 5:25:20 PM PDT by Bigun (IRSsucks@getridof it.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green

Price is always independent of cost.



yeah. ok. good bye


311 posted on 08/27/2004 5:49:06 PM PDT by Chilldoubt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green

The objective is always to charge "as much as the market can bear" to maximimize profit.



if raising prices was all it took to maximize prices then prices would be really, really high.

the objective is to maximize profit yes, but that is done as frequently by lowering prices as increasing them.

and do you really think price is independent of cost?????


312 posted on 08/27/2004 5:52:37 PM PDT by Chilldoubt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies]

To: Chilldoubt

Good bye.


313 posted on 08/27/2004 5:55:02 PM PDT by Willie Green (Go Alan Go!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 311 | View Replies]

To: Bigun

well you were right.


314 posted on 08/27/2004 5:56:16 PM PDT by Chilldoubt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
Not at all. Price is solely determined by survey of market competition. It is always independent of cost. The objective is always to charge "as much as the market can bear" to maximize profit. Those who simply try to set price as cost plus a "reasonable markup" are idiots.

Funny how the people who want us to bet the entire US economy on a guess about embedded taxes, cannot grasp such simple economic points.

315 posted on 08/27/2004 6:06:41 PM PDT by balrog666 ("One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." -- Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies]

To: GodBlessUSA

"When I said federal, vs. national, I didn’t just mean the IRS. I agree the IRS is a major burden. I mean Government and Politicians. I don't trust those Politicians, do you? I'm not convinced that 23% would be the end. They will find a way to increase it. It's the nature of that beast"

That isn't an objection that is specific to the FairTax. It would apply to any tax system. The current debate should be to put in place a system which intrudes the least relative to our constitutional liberties, is the least economically destructive and the least administratively burdensome.


316 posted on 08/27/2004 6:10:32 PM PDT by phil_will1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: balrog666

i don't want to bet anything on a guess - i'm looking for information - but how can one say that price is independent of costs incurred in production of the good?????


317 posted on 08/27/2004 6:11:36 PM PDT by Chilldoubt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies]

To: balrog666

i am still looking for information on the amount of costs built into prices or built into wage reductions resulting from tax related costs. i'm also looking for how much the proposed system would cost - i've heard from zero to 30%. i'm sure it's somewhere in between - but i'd like to see some research


318 posted on 08/27/2004 6:14:48 PM PDT by Chilldoubt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies]

To: motor_racer

"Come on now, you all can think of lots of fun things about this tax, can't you?"

Sure can, such as
(1) dramatically reduced trade deficits,
(2) dramatically reduced federal budget deficit,
(3) significantly increased GDP growth
(4) unemployment down significantly
(5) much less administrative burden on individuals

Those are just for starters.


319 posted on 08/27/2004 6:16:03 PM PDT by phil_will1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: balrog666

that is i'm looking for how much our income payroll system builds into prices (and wage reductoins - but i don't read much about that)


320 posted on 08/27/2004 6:16:50 PM PDT by Chilldoubt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 441-447 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson