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

Skip to comments.

Facts on Fair Tax show it's a great idea
Tribune & Georgian ^ | 9/16/2005 | Jay Moreno

Posted on 09/16/2005 5:15:32 PM PDT by Man50D

Dear Editor, I've just read a new best-seller, which I highly recommend to you and your readers: "The Fair Tax Book, Saying Goodbye to the Income Tax and the IRS."

The co-authors are "reformed lawyer" and syndicated talk show host Neal Boortz, and Congressman John Linder, R-Ga.

Linder is also the principal author/sponsor of The Fair Tax Bill (H.R. 25), currently before Congress.

In the interest of brevity (the book is only 180 pages, by the way), I'll quote from the back of the dust jacket.

"What the Fair Tax will do for America: eliminate the income tax and the dreaded IRS; jump start the U.S. economy; bring businesses and jobs back to the United States; and recapture billions of untaxed dollars currently lost to criminal and offshore businesses.

"What the Fair Tax will do for you: allow you to keep 100 percent of your hard-earned paycheck; let you choose to save all the money you want .... and pay taxes only when you spend it; eliminate countless taxes you don't even know you're paying; lower interest rates; and make April 15th just another beautiful spring day."

The authors provide ample citations from the works of various economic think-tanks to back each of those assertions.

The Fair Tax would replace all current federal, income-based taxes with one universal, federal "consumption tax," on both goods and services, at the retail level only. There would be no exemptions whatsoever. The proposed, "revenue neutral," initial tax rate would be 23 percent. Predictions are that the resulting economic boom would make it possible to lower that rate in short order.

As described so far, the Fair Tax would be so regressive as not to stand a snowball's chance in hell of passage. Here's the solution.

At the first of every month, every head-of-household, irrespective of income/net worth, would receive a federal "pre-bate" check equal to the taxes due on his or her appropriate "poverty level spending" for the coming month. To quote the authors, "'Poverty level spending' is, by definition, that spending necessary for a household of a given size to pay for its necessities. It is adjusted every year by the Department of Health and Human Services."

For example, if the Fair Tax were currently in effect, every family of four would receive a monthly pre-bate of $491.82 to cover the 23 percent tax on its first $2,138.22 spent -- its "poverty level spending." All spending above that level (that month) would have a net federal tax cost of 23 cents on the dollar -- be it for sneakers or a yacht.

The federal sales tax would be collected by the states' sales tax offices. Moreover, don't forget that everyone's "take-home-pay" would be their full, gross earnings under the Fair Tax.

It is a most interesting, concise and thought-provoking read that can be knocked out in two or three sittings. Suggested full retail is $24.95. There is at least one copy available at the Camden County Public Library.

I hope that you and your readers will both enjoy the book and come to support the bill.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: april15; boortz; conartists; confusion; dupe; fairtax; flattax; flimflam; hoax; hr25; incometax; ira; irs; liar; linder; nrst; retraction; scam; scientology; smuggling; somethingfornothing; swindle; taxes; taxfraud; taxreform
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 341-360 next last
To: pigdog
A truly intelligent commentary.

Thank you.

41 posted on 09/16/2005 7:28:23 PM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

Thank you for serving our country.


42 posted on 09/16/2005 7:34:15 PM PDT by Man50D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Your Nightmare; Always Right
I can't believe y'all are still trying to pimp this book when it's admittedly full of lies.

There are NO lies in the book nor has there been anything remotely approaching an admission of one as any OBJECTIVE observer (that leaves you two out doesn't it) can readily determine for themselves.

It would seem therefore, that the only prevaricators around here are you two!

43 posted on 09/16/2005 7:46:47 PM PDT by Bigun (IRS sucks @getridof it.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
Boortz has now admitted that prices can't come down like he says in the book (unless employees miraculously agree to a pay cut).

A wage cut, not a pay cut. Employees can agree or disagree(stay or quit) if they get wage cut and receive the same (take-home) pay.

44 posted on 09/16/2005 8:00:46 PM PDT by woodbeez (There is nothing in socialism that a little age or a little money will not cure(W. Durant))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Man50D
Facts on Fair Tax show it's a great idea
LOL! You people live in your own little world.

There are no "facts on Fairtax", it doesn't exist...But there is Fairtax lies, hope, wishful thinking and conjecture

Even Boortz had to do a major "fact" lie retraction.

45 posted on 09/16/2005 8:01:14 PM PDT by lewislynn (Status quo today is the result of eliminating the previous status quo. Be careful what you wish for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigun
There are NO lies in the book nor has there been anything remotely approaching an admission of one as any OBJECTIVE observer

No lies? Just a little $1.3 trillion misrepresentation. According to fair taxers for the last 7 years, 'embedded taxes' did not include taxes paid by individuals. Wages would not have to be cut in order to see a 20-30% price reduction. Well after some arm twisting, Boortz finally admitted that was not the case. To see a 20-30% reduction in prices, employees would have to take wage cuts. A fact that you could not get from 100 readings of Boortz Book and the fair tax website and other various propaganda they put out.

46 posted on 09/16/2005 8:07:07 PM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: woodbeez
A wage cut, not a pay cut.

Take home pay and wages are not equivalent terms. Pay and wages can be used interchangeably, but I will try to use wages in the future if that makes you feel better. When people ask you what your employer pays you, I bet most people would respond with their wage, not their take home pay. At least I would.

47 posted on 09/16/2005 8:11:37 PM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
To see a 20-30% reduction in prices, employees would have to take wage cuts

Thank you for saying wage that time. Do you agree there would be a 20%-30% reduction in prices if employee wages were cut?

48 posted on 09/16/2005 8:14:18 PM PDT by woodbeez (There is nothing in socialism that a little age or a little money will not cure(W. Durant))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: woodbeez
Thank you for saying wage that time. Do you agree there would be a 20%-30% reduction in prices if employee wages were cut?

You could get close to 20%. Business owners would also have to accept lower profits too in lieu of paying taxes.

49 posted on 09/16/2005 8:19:17 PM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
Business owners would also have to accept lower profits too in lieu of paying taxes

Please explain. Your gross employee costs go down by 20%. How would that result in lower profits?

50 posted on 09/16/2005 8:26:46 PM PDT by woodbeez (There is nothing in socialism that a little age or a little money will not cure(W. Durant))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
More idiot-level propaganda for the FairTax.

Don't be jealous of your superiors. It is not becoming.

51 posted on 09/16/2005 8:41:05 PM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot (Sorry that I had to drop out of the conversation earlier. After I had posted # 87 I then went back)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: woodbeez
Please explain. Your gross employee costs go down by 20%. How would that result in lower profits?
You're mixing employee costs with price reductions, they aren't directly related. The controversial possible 20% price reduction isn't entirely from the backs of labor. Labor wage reductions are only part of the total savings.

Reduced prices can result in reduced profits...

52 posted on 09/16/2005 8:41:06 PM PDT by lewislynn (Status quo today is the result of eliminating the previous status quo. Be careful what you wish for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: pigdog
...it's just par for the course for Squirrels. Seems they're against things beneficial to our economy.

That is the only logical conclusion I can draw. Just a s the liberals are anti-America, despite their protestations of patriotism, these folks have to be anti-economic growth and prosperity. Any connection? Hmmmm.

53 posted on 09/16/2005 8:46:27 PM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot (Sorry that I had to drop out of the conversation earlier. After I had posted # 87 I then went back)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: lewislynn
You're mixing employee costs with price reductions, they aren't directly related. The controversial possible 20% price reduction isn't entirely from the backs of labor.

Reduced expenses aren't related to increased profits? I also don't see how 20% is so controversial when the employer sees a 15% reduction in FICA costs alone in gross employee cost.

54 posted on 09/16/2005 8:48:58 PM PDT by woodbeez (There is nothing in socialism that a little age or a little money will not cure(W. Durant))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: woodbeez
Please explain. Your gross employee costs go down by 20%. How would that result in lower profits?

Embedded taxes includes all taxes. That means business owners would have to take less profit, but end up with the same take home pay because not income tax.

55 posted on 09/16/2005 8:49:02 PM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

If the business owner reduced his prices by his savings from the gross employee cost, his "take home pay" or profit would remain exactly the same.


56 posted on 09/16/2005 8:55:56 PM PDT by woodbeez (There is nothing in socialism that a little age or a little money will not cure(W. Durant))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: pigdog

Why is the Fair Tax (23%) sold as a sales tax like tax?

If it was a sales tax like tax the tax on a 100.00 item would be 23.00 when, under the fair tax, it is really 29.xx in tax on that 100.00 item.

Why attempt to mislead people on something as simple as the rate people will pay?


57 posted on 09/16/2005 9:01:18 PM PDT by SolarisRocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Man50D
What is the basis of such a general and vague statement?

It is admirable that you seek a calm and sane discussion, but with a statement like he made what are the chances of that? Zilch! Anyone protecting the present system, and in the absence of their support for an alternative is by default supporting the present system, is nuts and incapable of a sane discussion.

58 posted on 09/16/2005 9:02:06 PM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot (Sorry that I had to drop out of the conversation earlier. After I had posted # 87 I then went back)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook
Hopefully a fair tax means a single tax on income of all types, no exclusions.

It has nothing to do with income, just how much you spend. Under the fair tax, a person making a million dollars a year would pay no more in taxes than a person making 5000 dollars.

It all depends on how much you spend.

59 posted on 09/16/2005 9:03:53 PM PDT by Doe Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: woodbeez
Reduced expenses aren't related to increased profits? I also don't see how 20% is so controversial when the employer sees a 15% reduction in FICA costs alone in gross employee cost.

Employer onlys see 1/2 of 7.65% savings in payroll. And labor is only one component of total cost. It is a large on though.

60 posted on 09/16/2005 9:04:56 PM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 341-360 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