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.
Thank you.
Thank you for serving our country.
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!
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.
Facts on Fair Tax show it's a great ideaLOL! 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.
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.
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.
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.
Please explain. Your gross employee costs go down by 20%. How would that result in lower profits?
Don't be jealous of your superiors. It is not becoming.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.