Posted on 08/02/2005 12:22:49 PM PDT by phil_will1
FairTax would free markets, individuals from income tax.
In “The FairTax Book,” Rep. John Linder (R-Ga.) and libertarian talk radio host Neal Boortz offer a witty and straightforward explanation of the political and economic consequences of making April 15 “just another day.” Published by Regan Books, it hits bookstores this week. And if tax reform is not a “hot” topic now, then give this book a month on the New York Times bestseller list for things to change.
The FairTax is a bold idea to replace the income tax with a national sales tax. What’s so bold about it? Not only would the FairTax get the IRS off the nation’s back, but it would unshackle the economy to grow free of an achievement-punishing income tax.
The FairTax is a 23 percent sales tax designed to be revenue-neutral, meaning the tax would generate the same amount of revenue as the old system. Why 23 percent? Because once the cost of the income tax was phased out, prices on consumer goods would drop by that amount.
The Free Market Project is pleased to present the following excerpts from “The FairTax Book.” by Neal Boortz and John Linder. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced without written permission from HarperCollins Publishers, 10 East 53rd Street, New York, NY, 10022.
yes ... the magic of focusing on what you do for profits , rather then what you have to do for tax compliance to begin with.
simplify
streamline
these are not just buzz words bantered about by ceos at stockholder meetings.
And as volumes grow because of the added world wide competitiveness,prices can fall further.
The fact is , workers will get all their money, Then have the power to make decisions concerning it.
If nothing else the money that will no longer go to tax lawyers will be available for productive use.Thats a plus right there.
From Brushaber v. Union Pacific Decided January 24, 1916.
We are of opinion, however, [240 U.S. 1, 11] that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion [assumption] that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it [the erroneous assumption],
I understand the amendment process and how the american people were ripped off when the 16th amendment was passed. Some people had shown me the error of my thinking as it relates to taxes and the constitution. I was confused between Article I Sec 8 Clause 1 and Article I Sec 9 Clause 4. Dont be so quick to "ASS-U-ME" others loathe the constitution just because they dont quite understand something. Here's some 16th amendment homework for you and maybe it'll help you see my frustration:
http://www.anti-irs.com/16th_amendment.htm
It is equally "intentionally misleading" to keep quoting "30%" (it is actually 29.87%) on a thread where the FairTax vs the Income Tax is the issuee.
For this discussion tax inclusive rates are the basis of comparison, while if you compare the FairTax to other sales taxes, t.e., is the basis. Either is correct and either leads to the same amount of tax, but to compare income tax with the FairTax only t.i. rates are reasonable. Insisting there is only a single, higher rate is as "intentionally misleading" as you claim for your opponents, but perhaps you can't see that.
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.