Skip to comments."The Fair Tax Book" New York Times #1
Posted on 08/11/2005 7:27:51 AM PDT by GPBurdell
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU !!!!
We got the word just as we were arriving at our Gainesville, Florida hotel. The FairTax Book will debut at No. 1 on the New York Times non-fiction bestseller's list. In a word .... unbelievable. Oddly enough, this list won't actually be published until September 21st. Go figure.
Last winter I spent week after week doing my radio show, grabbing a sandwich for lunch, and then sitting down in front of the word processor and stacks of research to pound out my portion of this book. Congressman Linder was doing the same thing at his home in Washington DC or Atlanta. We both believe totally in the FairTax idea, and we wanted to have a book out there for people who were similarly dedicated, or who just had a curiosity that needed to be satisfied. Neither of us ever imagined what would happen. Neither, frankly, did the publisher. It was only about six weeks ago that we started to wonder whether or not we might be able to make it to the New York Times bestseller's list. Now that we know we will debut September 21st No. 1, we're just blown away.
This means so much for The FairTax movement. Any book that rises to No. 1 creates a buzz ... whether it's about teenaged wizards or tax reform. Well ... especially tax reform. This just doesn't happen. Books on tax reform don't go to No. 1. So now opinion makers, politicians, pundits, editorial writers, reporters, columnists and others will take notice and start paying attention. This will result in more and more efforts such as this opinion piece that appeared in the Clark Times-Courier in Berryville, Virginia. Late yesterday I was notified that a writer and photographer from a major national magazine will join the book tour today to see just what is going on here. This will mean that more and more Americans will become aware of the essence of the FairTax, and what it can mean to both their personal financial picture and to the American economy. As the people become aware this idea becomes more and more impossible for the political class to ignore.
Do we have hopes that The FairTax Book will stay at No. 1? Well, that would be nice ... but I'm not expecting it. Our best hope is that continued interest in this fantastic tax reform idea will keep the book up there in the top five for weeks ... and that the FairTax will continue to generate conversation across the country.
Again. Congressman Linder and I thank you ... as do the tens of millions of Americans who have been laboring under a punishing and confiscatory tax system for generations. This is a great country, and a country of bold ideas. The current income tax is beyond salvaging. In 1986 we enacted what was supposed to be a wonderful tax reform plan that eliminated most tax deductions and instituted what was essentially a two-tiered flat tax. There were two tax brackets, 15% and 28%. Simple as that. But it didn't stay simple. That tax law has now been amended and modified more than 10,000 times.
Question does the fair tax get rid of all the taxes or just the ones on your check. I.E. phone tax, gas tax, etc. etc. etc..
The FairTax legislation repeals all federal income and payroll taxes, and gift/estate taxes, covering about 94% of federal revenue collections.
Specific excises and tariffs are still left on the books, though like you I would like to see the others gone as well. Good time to push for that to be added to the bill. Write Linder and your Congress Critters and tell them your desires on that one. The FairTax legislation should cover ALL, 100% of federal taxes, not just 94%. It should be a clean sweep, I'm right behind you there.
Thanks for the post!!
I doubt the framers of the constitution, when impowering the federal government to impose excise taxes would even recognize the concept of a consumption tax.
- "A nation cannot long exist without revenues. Destitute of this essential support, it must resign its independence, and sink into the degraded condition of a province. This is an extremity to which no government will of choice accede. Revenue, therefore, must be had at all events. In this country, if the principal part be not drawn from commerce, it must fall with oppressive weight upon land."
- "The ability of a country to pay taxes must always be proportioned, in a great degree, to the quantity of money in circulation, and to the celerity with which it circulates. Commerce, contributing to both these objects, must of necessity render the payment of taxes easier, and facilitate the requisite supplies to the treasury."
And how would this society change when you are personally responsible for delivering-up to the government every penny on every transaction?
Seeing as the FairTax is a tax on retail sales only, that is rather for from the mark.
As regards who is expected to pay taxes in the United States under the Constitution as it was designed to work:
- "The difference between a federal and national government, as it relates to the OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT, is supposed to consist in this, that in the former the powers operate on the political bodies composing the Confederacy, in their political capacities; in the latter, on the individual citizens composing the nation, in their individual capacities. On trying the Constitution by this criterion, it falls under the NATIONAL, not the FEDERAL character;"
Anti-Federalist Papers #3 NEW CONSTITUTION CREATES A NATIONAL GOVERNMENT;
- There are but two modes by which men are connected in society, the one which operates on individuals, this always has been, and ought still to be called, national government; the other which binds States and governments together (not corporations, for there is no considerable nation on earth, despotic, monarchical, or republican, that does not contain many subordinate corporations with various constitutions) this last has heretofore been denominated a league or confederacy. The term federalists is therefore improperly applied to themselves, by the friends and supporters of the proposed constitution.
- ``A CONCURRENT JURISDICTION in the article of taxation was the only admissible substitute for an entire subordination, in respect to this branch of power, of State authority to that of the Union.'' Any separation of the objects of revenue that could have been fallen upon, would have amounted to a sacrifice of the great INTERESTS of the Union to the POWER of the individual States. The convention thought the concurrent jurisdiction preferable to that subordination; and it is evident that it has at least the merit of reconciling an indefinite constitutional power of taxation in the Federal government with an adequate and independent power in the States to provide for their own necessities.
The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787
James Mchenry before the Maryland House of Delegates.
Maryland Novr. 29th 1787--
Appendix A, CXLVIa, page 149, S9.
"Convention have also provided against any direct or Capitation Tax but according to an equal proportion among the respective States: This was thought a necessary precaution though it was the idea of every one that government would seldom have recourse to direct Taxation, and that the objects of Commerce would be more than Sufficient to answer the common exigencies of State and should further supplies be necessary, the power of Congress would not be exercised while the respective States would raise those supplies in any other manner more suitable to their own inclinations --"
- Article VI: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
- Article I Section 8: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,
to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;
but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; "
- Article I Section 8: "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."
A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
"COMMERCE, trade, contracts.
The exchange of commodities for commodities; considered in a legal point of view, it consists in the various agreements which have for their object to facilitate the exchange of the products of the earth or industry of man, with an intent to realize a profit. Pard. Dr. Coin. n. 1. In a narrower sense, commerce signifies any reciprocal agreements between two persons, by which one delivers to the other a thing, which the latter accepts, and for which he pays a consideration; if the consideration be money, it is called a sale; if any other thing than money, it is called exchange or barter. Domat, Dr. Pub. liv. 1, tit. 7, s. 1, n. "
A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
DUTIES. In its most enlarged sense, this word is nearly equivalent to taxes, embracing all impositions or charges levied on persons or things;
A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
EXCISES. This word is used to signify an inland imposition, paid sometimes upon the consumption of the commodity, and frequently upon the retail sale.
So who is responsible for accounting the transaction, collecting the tax and transmitting it to the government? The guy who just wrote a check for his groceries? I don't think so. I assume it's the person who is PAID. That's the business owner.
Now you can say that it's no different than collecting a state sales tax, but what about transactions that here-to-for have not had a sales tax levied? Let's say you collect rents. Are YOU going to be responsible for paying and reporting to the government the taxes on every cent you receive, or is the rent payer? Forget the "income". It will fall to the person collecting the money. You won't be paying taxes 1-4 times a year. Will you have to account for it on a daily basis?
What if Mom leaves the old beater car to junior in her will? Mom won't be around to pay on that transaction. Will junior owe the sales tax on the value of the transaction?
I'm just saying that such a taxation scenario is going to make very profound changes in our lives, and may call upon a large segment of this society to account -- in minute detail -- for every transaction. We would do well to seriously contemplate the reprocussions.
Take the rent collector, or property owner more precisely. Yes, the taxes on that are remitted by the collector, and he is paid a percentage of it for doing so, but the renter actually pays it, as renters do now but unknowingly. However, with the present system the landlord has to pay tax on the income from that property so he must keep up with it anyway. In addition, in order to minimize his tax he has to deduct his depreciation and all his expense in maintaining his property, including the costs of a rent collector if he uses one instead of doing it himself. Of course, all those costs are necessarily added to the rent he charges or he would not be able to be in that business.
So, the renter pays the tax, as he does now anyway but it is buried in the rent payment, and the rentor remits the money to the government in a way that is much easier and less expensive to determine.
Back to the grocery store. Not all items there are taxable so the grocer has to know, or his computer does, what is and what isn't taxed and how much for each. Then he must determine to whom the money goes. With the NRST all will be taxed and all will be taxed the same, making it much simpler for everyone. All legal residents of the US will receive a prebate check to cover the cost of the tax on necessities up to a certain level.
The old car will not be taxed because all items are taxed at retail, paid when the car was new, and taxed only once, when it was new.
It is really much easier and simpler than what we are now doing. The big difference is that it will all be visible where many of the taxes we pay now are hidden.
Way to go Boortz and Linder. This is one heck of an accomplishment. Kudos to these fine patriots.
It gets rid of all Federal taxes, and rolls them into a single sales tax levied at the retail level.
State and local stay where they are. That's another battle.
Excellent news? The question now is how many weeks will it stay #1 or top five, top ten? Will it become a T.V. reality show?
First a Congressional reality show, then a TV reality show. :-)
Maybe becuz' you forgot to get a Spanish-speaking cell phone????
Man, keep thinking like that and your head is going to explode. It's like thinking about time travel. LOL If I go back in time and tell myself to buy Microsoft stock, will I cause a rift in the space time continuum?
Sounds like you're up on this program. I don't understand why the old car wouldn't be taxed. Are you sure a consumption tax only applies on retail transactions? If so, why would a tenant pay the tax, or a landlord either (for that matter)?
Hubby and I have our copy, and we're looking it over now. I'm thinking of ordering more to send to family members.
I am certain about the car and confident about what I said about the rent, but not certain. I can't find rent in the book or on the web. I will try to find the HR 25 bill itself and see if I can find it. The reason I am confident is because what I told you is in keeping with the general principles of the bill.
Keep in mind that this is a National RETAIL Sales Tax. Only new, retail items.
Rent IS taxed if for individual domicile purpose (e.g., use as a residence). The landlord would collect the tax and be paid for doing so. In effect the renter is "consuming" the use of the property by renting (or you can think of his renting it as consuming the service of providing shelter, I suppose).
A business rental of, say, an office for normal business purposes would not be taxed.
Think about one recent event and tell me that prices won't fall.
GM announced "Employee Pricing" on all of it's vehicles and sales took off. After seeing their sales drop off, Ford and Chrysler announced their own similar programs.
Did they have to? Nope. But they did because they wanted to stay in business.
This example is only temporary because it was based on cutting profits to sell cars, but it was still necessary for Ford and Chrysler to stay competitive.
When actual costs -- tax and tax compliance -- are removed, the effect will be more permanent.
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.