Replies

The prebate is going to everyone, it does not solve the relative unequal treatment of "old" accumulated wealth, as compared with "new" earned wealth.

If your old wealth is invested in munis ala Heinz-Kerry you will pay more because you will be taxed on the spending. If invested in a money market you will pay less because you will no longer be taxed on the interest. If invested in stocks, you will be taxed less, because you will not be taxed on the dividends or the sale.

It actually evens things out.

Does this sound Fair?

Will most seniors be better off? I think so -- as they would if we were to simplify the tax code via other means. Anyway, the status quo is anything but fair so, yes, the FairTax is more fair than the status quo.

You are putting 25% more take-home pay allegedly in the hands of every wage earner in America, instead of giving it to the government.

And the government gets the exact same amount of money back when it is spent, according to the plan. There is no reason to increase the money supply.

And the government gets the exact same amount of money back when it is spent, according to the plan.

You are buying into the plan's statement that prices will be able to drop, which I believe is not possible unless wages for employees drop by the amount of their income and FICA taxes. The original guy that developed this plan was Dr. Dale Jorgenson. This is the person that the FairTax people are quoting when they say prices will drop about 20-25%. Here is his testimony:

March 27. 1996 (104-46) at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/wmhearings/104.html

"Since producers would no longer pay taxes on profits or other forms of income from capital and workers would no longer pay income taxes on wages, prices received by producers, shown in the fifth chart, would fall by an average of twenty percent."

(the referenced fifth chart is the same basic chart that Boortz used in his book, Fig 5.1)

Sounds pretty clear that he expected the workers to give the money they saved by not having to pay taxes on wages back to the "producer" (their employer) to enable them to lower prices. Jorgenson was under no delusion that the wage earners would get to keep 100% of their current paychecks. He knew they would get to keep 100% of their new smaller paychecks (reduced by about the amount they now pay in income and FICA taxes).