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

Skip to comments.

Abolish the IRS
The Observer Online ^ | 11/8/05 | Scott Wagner

Posted on 11/10/2005 3:18:48 AM PST by Man50D

Since 1954, the size of the United States' tax code has increased by almost 500 percent. Tax regulations created by the Internal Revenue Service have increased in volume by 939 percent, and in April 2006, Americans will spend a combined total of 6.5 billion hours, at an estimated cost of close to $500 billion, in order to simply pay for the privilege of footing Washington's bill.

It is time for the FairTax.

Perhaps you have heard of the FairTax by now. It is a comprehensive plan for the dissolution of the IRS that would replace all income taxes with an embedded personal consumption tax. According to the website of Americans for Fair Taxation (www.fairtax.org), the FairTax would abolish "personal, estate, gift, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, self-employment and corporate taxes." In their stead would be a 23 percent national sales tax on all consumption goods: a simple, one-time tax that is collected at the retail level.

However, the FairTax is unlike the current sales taxes that exist in this country. These taxes are imposed on top of embedded income tax and compliance costs. In the FairTax Book, written by libertarian radio personality Neal Boortz and Congressman John Linder, a loaf of bread is used as an example to illustrate these hidden costs. For every loaf of bread, the seed producers pass tax costs onto consumers. The shipping company does too. In fact, processors, bakeries, distributors and grocery stores all pass a portion of their income tax burdens onto consumers, no matter how rich or poor they are. Eliminating these costs initially, by eliminating the income tax altogether, would reduce the market price of all products by an average of 22 percent.

Don't take my word for it, though. Take the word of the Harvard Economics Department.

So when these costs are abolished, the FairTax is added and returns the prices of consumption goods to - you guessed it - exactly where they are today. The difference is, of course, that people who are purchasing these things keep every last penny of their paychecks. For low-income families, this would mean an immediate average increase in pay of 25-30 percent.

If you are trying to think of ways in which to oppose this plan, I need to know one thing: why?

The federal government would still steal - I mean, collect - the same amount of tax revenue as it does today under the FairTax. The FairTax does not cut funding from any cherished socialist programs like welfare or Social Security. It is merely a new way for the federal government to pay for its existence.

But wait, it gets better. The FairTax Act of 2005 (yes, it has already been written and is ready to be passed) also contains mechanisms for a "prebate." Based on government figures, the federal government would calculate the "annual consumption allowance" of a household - that is, the amount of money that household can be expected to spend on the necessities of life for that year - and refunds the money. Every household in America gets a tax refund, every year.

In case you had not noticed, wealthy individuals tend to spend more money than poor individuals on consumption goods; thus, the wealthy would end up paying more in taxes than the poor. Most people seem to like this idea.

Finally, the economic impact would be astounding. Driven by the "increasing burden of taxation and Social Security payments, combined with rising state regulatory activities and labor market restrictions," American businesses have been seeking out "tax havens" in other countries with much friendlier tax structures. The media buzzword for this phenomenon is "outsourcing," and believe it or not, our government has been causing it all along.

Passing the FairTax Act would make the United States the "only nation in the world whose companies could sell into a global economy with no tax component in the price system." Companies would rush to bring jobs back to the United States, and their American workers would keep all of the money they earn.

The FairTax is a typical libertarian solution to a greater social problem. Instead of promising more regulations, like many Republicrats typically do, we reduce them. It is a novel concept, I know. The results would be revolutionary.

The FairTax is not a panacea. It does not lower taxes, and it does nothing to curb the spending orgy the Republicrats have been having in Washington. It does not stop pork barrel spending, nor does it re-evaluate how federal money is spent. The responsibility for affecting change in those areas falls squarely on us, as voters.

However, the FairTax would be an enormous stake in the heart of the monstrosity that is the IRS. The thought is enough to make any libertarian smile happily and sleep better at night.

We need the FairTax now.

Scott Wagner is the president of the College Libertarians Club. He writes political satire for the Web site The Enduring Vision and thinks you should go read it. He can be contacted at swagner1@nd.edu


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: fairtax; incometax; irs; konstitutionparty; libertarians; taxes; taxreform
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-171 next last
To: groanup
We'll you sure are amusing the rest of us.

Excellent! I love a party!

There's a whole web-site about the fair tax. Did you know that?

There is a whole website about gullible fools, did you know that?

141 posted on 11/15/2005 12:55:54 PM PST by Protagoras (Unabashed Christian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: groanup

I actually don't find it amusing at all. I think Protagoras and Final Authority are probably pseudonyms used by the same 11 year old brat.

He adds nothing to the discussion as his stated goal is simply to irritate others.


142 posted on 11/15/2005 2:03:14 PM PST by Kellis91789
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras
Nonsense fool. You've been giving answers few of which are grounded in anything but your attempts at cheap shot hit and run tactics.

You've never answered any question posed and I don't expect you will, but that's not why I post to such a dolt. I merely want to get certain information in front of those interested in finding out about the FairTax and YOU prove to be a perfect foil for doing that since it is probably apparent to all the readers that you not only know nothing about the FairTax but that you're so intellectually bankrupt that you won't even answer the questions posed - most likely because you really have no answers or logical explanations.

And don't break into a sweat kissing yourself on the wrist and patting yourself on the back, you've already "played the game" (as you so childishly put it) with me and nicely so as some of those reading silently begin to observe. Your bumping of the thread is a big help and helps others learn about the FairTax. Your narcissistic approach to "debate" is nothing but a self love contest on your part with yourself as protagonist and merely represents the emptiness of your approach. It's actually very funny to most people judging from the comments I've seen about you.

You are widely recognized as the buffoon you truly are - and you're too ignorant to realize it. Just keep on helping us to bump the thread. Your moronic sophomoric observations will do just fine since you have no points to offer at all.
143 posted on 11/15/2005 2:18:03 PM PST by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Kellis91789; Protagoras; pigdog
...his stated goal is simply to irritate others.

There are one or two SQL's who post reasonable arguments on here. But there are many more who don't. It does the fair tax crowd a big favor when the anti's are so belligerent and fail to make logical arguments.

144 posted on 11/15/2005 4:47:32 PM PST by groanup (shred for Ian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Final Authority

FA,

Could you please provide an example of one of these

"retirees who have post tax investments to spend and have planned on financing their retirements otherwise at a very low marginal income tax rate."

Please provide the amount of their investments, the type of investment, how much of the investment gain is still unrealized, how much depreciation has been taken on real estate rental property, the average post-inflation rate of return, SS income and single/married status, and how their money will be spent in retirement. Also, their current income and what year they plan to retire, if they are not already retired.


145 posted on 11/21/2005 11:59:58 AM PST by Kellis91789
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Kellis91789
I don't waste my time with a nobody who asks such dumb questions. If you need me to tell you, you are most likely too dumb to understand the answer.

My other answer is, who the he11 do you think you are?

First, you asked me for an example, then you go on to require specifics. Again, who the bleep do you think you are?
146 posted on 11/21/2005 12:15:37 PM PST by Final Authority
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Final Authority; RobFromGa; pigdog

I didn't ask for any personal information about you.

I asked for a hypothetical example. You have stated several times that this group of people would lose out under the FairTax. If you cannot provide a simple example of such a person, then you are working off nothing but rhetoric and assumptions. Each of the questions I asked was relevent to the calculation of such a person's taxes under the two tax systems.

I put together a very detailed example for Polybius in another thread, in the interest of honest discussion. I was willing to do the same for you.

As to who I am, I think that is clear. I am the person trying to honestly debate an issue. You are the person making wild assertions, refusing to offer any sort of proof, and getting belligerant.

So put up or shut up. Show us all an honest example, rather than just screaming invective.


147 posted on 11/21/2005 1:55:50 PM PST by Kellis91789
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Kellis91789

Are you operating under a set of FairTax assumptions that assume that the price of goods are going to come down by 22% on average so that the 30% FairTax can be added, and prices will stay the same?

If you are operating under that assumption, then your calculations are going to be all screwed up.

Assume that the hypothetical couple are both retired, 63 years old, and have $1,000,000 saved-- $500,000 after tax money invested in safe dividend-paying investments and $500,000 in their home which they plan to live in for ten more years then sell it and move into a smaller place and invest the proceeds. They have saved up all their life and they plan to spend money now travelling the USA and buying stuff that appeals to them.

They also have a $200,000 Roth IRA which they have paid income taxes on and a $200,000 regular IRA. These guys have scrimped and saved, and by God, now they are going to enjoy the fruits of their labor.

Make whatever other assumptions you want about Mr. and Mrs. Accumulated Wealth.


148 posted on 11/21/2005 2:16:03 PM PST by RobFromGa (Polls are for people who can't think for themselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Kellis91789
Farttaxers like you have no clue as what to do because your cause is over, so you keep bringing up threads or resurrecting old ones to keep the flame burning. The problem is, it is only burning in your mind and nowhere else. So, beat it.
149 posted on 11/21/2005 2:24:42 PM PST by Final Authority
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: RobFromGa

No, Rob, I don't assume the 22% price drop. I work my examples without a price drop and then see how much prices would need to drop, if any, for that particular person to come out even or ahead under the FairTax.

My additional assumptions about Mr. and Mrs. Accumulated wealth are these:

1) Retired early in 2004, with last-year income of $60K, SS benefit $1245/mo =~$15K/yr.

2) Cost-basis of dividend-generating stocks in after-tax investment account is $200K, with $300K unrealized capital gains. Dividends of 3%/yr ($15K) under Income Tax system, Dividends increase to 4%/yr ($20K) under FairTax. Reduction of tax rate on dividends and capital gains historically results in higher dividend payouts -- corporate savings from eliminated taxes must go back to shareholders.

3) Regular IRA with $200K rate of return 5% subject to ordinary income tax rates.

4) Roth IRA $200K will grow at 5%/yr, and withdrawn with no Income Tax due.

5) Home appreciating in value 3%/yr faster than inflation. Original purchase price $75K. FairTax on new construction (consequence of no Price Drop) bumps price of existing homes so they are competitive.

6) Planned life expectancy is to age 95.

7) All rates of return are inflation adjusted.

Income tax 1st ten years:
Income = $15K(SS) + $30K(AT) + $15K(IRA) + $15K(Roth) = $75K
Taxable income = $7.5K(SS) + $15K(AT) + $15K(IRA) - $10K(Married Std Ded) = $27.5K
Income Tax bill = $3K
Spendable income = $72K

At end of ten years:
AT account down to $328K
IRA down to $137K
Roth down to $137K
Home sold for $675K, capital gains in excess of allowed for couple is $100K, tax collected is $15K, net invested is $660K, rate of return is %5.

Next 32 years of income tax:
Income = $15K(SS) + $16K(AT) + $8.7K(IRA) + $8.7K(Roth) + $42K(HOUSE) = $92.4K
Taxable income = $7.5K(SS) + $9K(AT) + $8.7K(IRA) + $33K(HOUSE) - $10K(Married Std Ded) = $48.2K
Income Tax bill = $8.4K
Spendable income = $84K

The income tax bill would actually fall a little each year as less of the withdrawn amounts are interest/dividends.

FairTax 1st ten years:
Income = $15K(SS) + $44K(AT) + $15K(IRA) + $15K(Roth) + $4K(FCA)= $93K
Taxable income = 0
Income Tax bill = $0
Spendable income = $93K ($72K price + $21K FT)

At the end of ten years:
AT account down to $214K
IRA down to $137K
Roth down to $137K
Home sold for $877K ($675*1.2987), net invested is $877K, rate of return is %5.

Next 32 years of FairTax:
Income = $15K(SS) + $12K(AT) + $8.7K(IRA) + $8.7K(Roth) + $55.6K(HOUSE) + $4K(FCA)= $103K
Taxable income = $0
Income Tax bill = $0K
Spendable income = $103K ($79K price + $24K FT)

It looks like it is about a wash to me. The money lasts until age 95 with approx the same purchasing power under Income Tax and FairTax. With no Price Drop figured into anything, Mr. & Mrs. Accumulated wealth have $5K less to spend each year during their last 32 years.

This supposes that they spend none of their time traveling outside the USA, and they buy everything brand new at retail - no used vehicles, no previously owned artwork, no educational expenses.

To break even compared with the Income Tax, Mr. & Mrs. Accumulated Wealth would like to see an average Price Drop of 4%, or a lower FT Rate.


150 posted on 11/21/2005 5:12:22 PM PST by Kellis91789
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Final Authority

That is quite a debating method you have there. I last encountered it among a group of 11 year old brats.

Now that you are defeated, don't go away mad. Just go away. Slink off into a corner and sulk because you couldn't think up an example. We'll all pretend we don't hear you crying.


151 posted on 11/21/2005 5:18:33 PM PST by Kellis91789
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: RobFromGa; Kellis91789
Are you operating under a set of FairTax assumptions that assume that the price of goods are going to come down by 22% on average so that the 30% FairTax can be added, and prices will stay the same?
No but s/he makes the assumtion everyone has more money to spend than they earn without mention of where the extra money comes from...The fairtax money tree I guess.

Not to mention s/he assumes receiving a yearly rebate for a family of four for 32yrs into RETIREMENT....s/he also didn't account for the 25% interest rate reduction. Interest rates effect investments as well as lending.

152 posted on 11/21/2005 5:32:31 PM PST by lewislynn (Fairtax facts = lies, dreams, hope, wishful thinking and conjecture.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: lewislynn

It's "HE" if it is bothering you.

No, I didn't mention where the FCA comes from. The FairTax rate of 23% supposedly covers this amount. That would be an issue for a separate thread.

The FCA amount for a family of four according to the 2005 tables would be $5,902. The amount for a married couple is $4,402. I rounded down to $4K.

Yes, interest rates do affect investments. Lower interest rates mean higher corporate earnings and higher dividends can be paid out. Rob didn't say the hypothetical couple's money was invested in CD's or bank accounts. He said "dividend-paying investments" and I was allowed to choose the investments. I chose high-yield mutual funds.


153 posted on 11/21/2005 5:43:27 PM PST by Kellis91789
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Kellis91789

I'll take a look at this closer later, a few quick questions:

1. how did you calculate the $44k AT income in the FairTax example? (as compared with only $15k AT income off the exact same amount of money under the present scenario. by depleting the AT nest egg?)

2. how do you figure that all used homes will be worth 30% more plus real estate continue to rise at 3% over inflation after the FairTax is enacted? This is illogical to me.

3. did you mean next 22 years for the second phase?

4. Income tax for MFJ at 48,200 per year is $6500, not $8400. (and capital gains are taxed at a lower rate of 5% for those in the lowest two tax brackets so I think the taxable income would not even be as high as you state).

at first glance it looks like this hypothetical couple makes out better as you describe it by depleting their after tax next egg much faster until they sell their house, but then the additional amount of home appreciation you predict under the FairTax makes up for it and restocks the money they spent out of their nest egg.

if you look at the amounts that this hypothetical couple actually sends to the FedGov for the total period you describe is:

present system: ($3k * 10) + (6.5k * 22) = $173,000
FairTax system: ($21k * 10) + ($24k * 22) = $738,000


154 posted on 11/21/2005 6:25:22 PM PST by RobFromGa (Polls are for people who can't think for themselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: RobFromGa

1. how did you calculate the $44k AT income in the FairTax example? (as compared with only $15k AT income off the exact same amount of money under the present scenario. by depleting the AT nest egg?)
[Yes, I had to deplete it faster in the FairTax to maintain the same purchasing power as in the income tax. My goal was to maintain as close to the same purchasing power between tax systems for as long as possible.]

2. how do you figure that all used homes will be worth 30% more plus real estate continue to rise at 3% over inflation after the FairTax is enacted? This is illogical to me.
[Over the last 30 years, real estate has averaged 3% over inflation. If you don't allow for any price drop, then a new home that is currently selling for 'X' will sell for 1.3*X under FairTax. Since existing home prices are generally competitive with new home prices of the same size in the same area, it seems reasonable to assume that existing home prices would have a final price similar to FairTaxed new homes. Since the FairTax won't apply, that is all benefit to the seller.]

3. did you mean next 22 years for the second phase?
[Oops. I did intend that, but all my numbers came from using a retirement calculator called "I'm retired, how long will my savings last ?" http://www.fincalc.com/ret_06.asp?id=12221 and I used 32 years after the initial 10. So my example turns out to run out to age 105. That income stream looked a little low to me for a $1.4M nestegg. Thanks for pointing out why.]


4. Income tax for MFJ at 48,200 per year is $6500, not $8400. (and capital gains are taxed at a lower rate of 5% for those in the lowest two tax brackets so I think the taxable income would not even be as high as you state).
[Well, the lower capital gains tax is slated to sunset in 2009, so I ignored the lower rate. But you may be right about the $6,500. That would make their spendable another $2K higher.]

at first glance it looks like this hypothetical couple makes out better as you describe it by depleting their after tax next egg much faster until they sell their house, but then the additional amount of home appreciation you predict under the FairTax makes up for it and restocks the money they spent out of their nest egg.
[Yes, they do go through their nestegg faster at first and benefit later from the higher home value. But the FairTax still penalizes them. They come out better under the income tax. To come out ahead under the FairTax, they'd need to get some Price Drop, spend some money not subject to FairTax, or buy under a lower FairTax rate. It looks like it is really the Roth IRA that is penalized most when compared to Income tax. Which makes sense, of course. Theoretically, if someone was relying entirely on Roth IRA money, they'd be really screwed.]


155 posted on 11/21/2005 9:39:01 PM PST by Kellis91789
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: RobFromGa

"if you look at the amounts that this hypothetical couple actually sends to the FedGov for the total period you describe is:

present system: ($3k * 10) + (6.5k * 22) = $173,000
FairTax system: ($21k * 10) + ($24k * 22) = $738,000"

Interesting, isn't it ? This couple spends about $200K less over the 42 years, but the government revenue is $565K higher.

I'll have to think about how that works.


156 posted on 11/21/2005 9:54:01 PM PST by Kellis91789
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Kellis91789
Dittos dopey. The fact is, you farttaxers are mining old threads for arguments to re-argue to keep your failed ideas on what you think is the front page. It isn't on anybody's page anymore as it is over and not worth the time for anyone knowledgeable to consider it further.
157 posted on 11/22/2005 5:53:36 AM PST by Final Authority
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Kellis91789; Your Nightmare; Final Authority; Polybius
Robfromga:
"if you look at the amounts that this hypothetical couple actually sends to the FedGov for the total period you describe is:

present system: ($3k * 10) + (6.5k * 22) = $173,000
FairTax system: ($21k * 10) + ($24k * 22) = $738,000"

Kellis91789:
Interesting, isn't it ? This couple spends about $200K less over the 42 years, but the government revenue is $565K higher.

I'll have to think about how that works.

For starters one is a tax on "spending" the other is on "taxable" income. Not all income is taxable but all spending would be. You also include the "rebate" as income...It's a rebate. It's only a welfare check if it's your only income and then it's still only worth 77% of it's face amount (the first year of enactment).

As posted by Robfromga, Linder has openly said and Kotlikoff the economist's report to the Fairtax proves, the Fairtax is a tax on accumulated wealth. IOW, the people who accumulated wealth, survived the tyrannical tax system you all despise would once again be the wipping dog. Only this time it would be the tyranny of the fairtax.

In your quest to prove how much better off a retiree would be, you did just the opposite. You can't even prove it by using made up figures.

158 posted on 11/22/2005 8:09:49 AM PST by lewislynn (Fairtax facts = lies, dreams, hope, wishful thinking and conjecture.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Kellis91789
No, I didn't mention where the FCA comes from. The FairTax rate of 23% supposedly covers this amount. That would be an issue for a separate thread.
It's not an issue for a separate thread when you add it to your gross income as if it's a welfare check. If everyone get extra income to spend, where does it come from?
The FCA amount for a family of four according to the 2005 tables would be $5,902. The amount for a married couple is $4,402. I rounded down to $4K
You're correct, I looked under at the table for a single person's FCA.
159 posted on 11/22/2005 8:52:32 AM PST by lewislynn (Fairtax facts = lies, dreams, hope, wishful thinking and conjecture.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Kellis91789; Always Right; lewislynn; RobFromGa
Why guess? The CBO provides data on effective tax rates. Below is a table showing burdens under the current system (not including excise taxes) from 2002 and the estimated effective FairTax rate assuming 100% consumption of income and Family Consumption Allowance.

As you can see, the majority of elderly have a very significant increase in their tax burden (the elderly poor, like all poor under the FairTax, make out like - actually as bandits). Even if you were to factor in a decrease in prices, most elderly do extremely poorly under the FairTax.

Elderly Childless Households - 2002

Gross
Income
Effective
Income +
Payroll +
Corporate
Income
Tax Rate
Total
Tax Inclusive
Spending
(including
$4,076 FCA)
Gross
FairTax
Paid
Net
FairTax
Paid

(Gross - FCA)
Effective
FairTax
Rate
Increase/
Decrease in
Tax Burden
Lowest Quintile
$ 11,300
1.0%
$15,376
$3,536
$(540)
-4.8%
-477.5%
Second Quintile
$ 26,400
2.5%
$30,476
$7,009
$2,933
11.1%
344.5%
Middle Quintile
$ 42,500
5.3%
$46,576
$10,712
$6,636
15.6%
194.6%
Fourth Quintile
$ 64,700
10.4%
$68,776
$15,818
$11,742
18.1%
74.5%
Highest Quintile
$173,600
22.8%
$177,676
$40,865
$36,789
21.2%
-7.1%
All
$ 55,200
14.6%
$59,276
$13,633
$9,557
17.3%
18.6%

Source for Gross Income and Effective Income, Payroll, and Corporate Income Tax Rates: Congressional Budget Office

160 posted on 11/22/2005 11:17:19 AM PST by Your Nightmare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-171 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