Posted on 06/02/2005 7:06:10 AM PDT by Your Nightmare
We know that tax prep guys like you have a vested interest in keeping the current code in place.I only do tax prep once a year, and it's on my own return. My job doesn't have anything to do with taxes or anything related to them. Sorry, try again.
Translation: Only "experts" can understand taxes. The difference between an income tax and a consumption tax is far too complicated for ignorant taxpayers to understand.
Lotta doughy bun here, very little meat...
You've gotta have some vested interest. There can be no other explaination for your calumny on these threads.
Naw, no vested interest in keeping taxes complex here...Yeah, making corporations pay their federal taxes 12 times a year to 50 different collection agencies won't complicate the issue! These guys would be just as busy under the FairTax, particularly in the transition, if not more so.
Sure it is. He said fairtax is bad, because it's simple and people understand it.
Obviously the tax code should be so complex, that people won't have any idea, how much they are really paying. (sarcasm)
"In such an environment, the Fair Tax makes things even worse. It degrades the quality of public debate by encouraging Americans to latch onto something familiar amid a raft of confusing alternatives.
Everyone understands the sales tax. Most Americans pay one every day, and those who don't probably revel in the fiscal probity of their state lawmakers. Supporters of the national sales tax have capitalized on that familiarity, offering taxpayers an apparently simple alternative to the confusing federal income tax."
I can't find an instance where the author states WHY a consumption tax is a bad idea.The author doesn't say a consumption tax is bad at all.
He said fairtax is bad, because it's simple and people understand it.Can you quote the part where he says that?
Seriously, if the author was interested in even trying to make a case, rather than simple bloviating, he would have at least looked at and tried to counter the claim that tax-inclusive rates are used to make rate comparisons with income taxes more equitable. Regardless of which side of that you come down on, making a simple assertion without any attempt at justification is a waste of the author's and readers' time.
A quick Google on the author shows that he's primarily a tax historian -- you'd think he'd at least provide a single reference...
For info on fairtax:
http://www.fairtax.org
http://www.salestax.org/
http://www.lewrockwell.com/browne/browne52.html
Don't accept trojan horses. Cut spending instead. Walter Williams http://www.townhall.com/columnists/walterwilliams/ww20041222.shtml Walter Williams on the NRST:
The bottom line is that if government spends $40 of our GDP, we can't spend that same $40. There's no question that tax reform is needed, but tax reform is secondary to a much larger issue -- federal spending. From 1787 to 1920, except during war, federal spending was a mere 3 percent of GDP, compared to today's 20 percent. If the federal government takes only 3 percent of the GDP, just about any tax system is relatively non-oppressive. However, if government were to take 50 percent, 60 percent or 70 percent of the GDP, you tell me what tax system would be non-oppressive.http://www.townhall.com/columnists/walterwilliams/ww20041222.shtml
Lew Rockwell on the NRST:
Imagine that a criminal came by every once in a while to steal the furniture on your porch. Whenever you would leave it out, the criminal would nab it but, for whatever reason, he left all potted plants alone. Then the criminal rings the doorbell one day and proposes a deal. He suggests that if you leave your furniture out, he won't steal it but instead will steal the potted plants. Overall, he says, you will be better off. Now, if you go for this deal, you probably deserve to have both your furniture and your plants stolen.Never trust a thief
You've gotta have some vested interest. There can be no other explaination for your calumny on these threads.My only vested interest is that I pay taxes.
If Lew Rockwell is against it, then 99% of FReepers must be for it.
You posted the article, one would think, you understand what you posted.
The author goes and LISTS the "bad aspects" of the Fair Tax:
"But before the Fair Tax disappears from serious discussion -- well, the discussion was never all that serious to begin with, at least among Fair Tax supporters -- let's take a minute to consider the worst aspect of this very bad idea."
But I agree, besides that the article is short on facts, it is also poorly written -- and this guy claims to be a historian, who makes his living by writing.
Here's an opposing view from a show me state newspaper:
http://www.joplinglobe.com/story.php?story_id=185731&c=96
In our view: Fair Tax simple, fair and efficient
5/8/05
Tax Day has come and gone again. April 15 is for many, if not most, Americans something of a paradox: It represents the completion of a painfully complex, expensive process and, with conclusion, a welcome emotional relief. After all, ignorance of the eight million words that make up the 60,000 pages of the U.S. Tax Code simply is not an excuse for mistakes. There are more than 500 federal tax forms. So complicated are the regulations that in 2001, federal auditors found that the IRS was giving bad advice to taxpayers nearly half the time.
It is time for the administration and Congress to look at something less voluminous and labyrinthian. One can only wonder how much more efficient and productive the tax-collection process might become with a flat tax or a national sales tax on personal consumption. The latter, which appears to be gaining impetus on Capitol Hill and was given mild, lip-service approval by President Bush, is being called the “Fair Tax.”
Forget about the possibilities of being audited and having to pay penalties because you incorrectly read or interpreted something in the existing code and consider just the expense of having your taxes prepared. It has been estimated that the tax-preparation industry earns an estimated $250 billion annually.
As for the fairness of the tax code, the IRS suspects that about $300 billion goes uncollected each year from what has been called the underground economy in which money changes hands for goods and services but no records are kept. Add to that all of the tax loopholes and breaks available to special interests, and you get a pretty good idea that not everyone is contributing.
U.S. Rep. John Linder, R-Ga., is the champion of the Fair Tax on Capitol Hill, and he has been steadily getting his colleagues to buy into the idea. It would impose a tax revenue-neutral national sales tax and eliminate income taxes, corporate taxes, self-employment taxes, capital-gains taxes, gift taxes and estate taxes.
Proponents see the national sales tax on consumption as an economic stimulus. For one thing, everyone would contribute something, although the poor making less than a federal threshold would be given pre-tax rebates each month. It would be efficient, requiring the collection of the tax at the point of sale. Gone would be the volumes of rules, all of the tax harbors and the necessity for keeping copies of just about every document for tax time.
Will the Fair Tax become law of the land? We would hope. It not only would eliminate the income-tax code of 90-plus years, but also all social-engineering breaks written by Congress to win votes from certain groups. It would be fair. It would be simple. And it would be efficient.
Comment on this story | Send a Letter to the Editor | Email this story to a friend
Comments
Duane Neighbors writes:
"A minor correction to your great article. The monthly rebate is for everyone, not just the poor. Although the poor benefit the most, the rebate is available to all persons with a social security number. The amount of the rebate is dependent on household size and is tied to the national poverty level as established by HHS. The intent is that citizens do not pay tax on spending up to the national poverty level."
Well, the Fair Tax is a consumption based tax plan. I should have said "Fair Tax," instead of consumption tax.
NTU supports the NRST. They are one of the foremost "tax reform" orgs. in America. Have been for years now.
This article seems like the reaction the DEA would have to reforming drug laws: "Gee, this might cause me to lose my job, thereofore its a bad idea for America". Perhaps presenting arguments from a little less biased source would be a good idea eh? Not to mention the fact that it has no other refuting evidence other than the writer doesn't like how the rate is explained. All of the points he makes are presented with no other reasoning other than "me no likee".
Weak. Very weak.
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.