There is No Such Thing as a Fair Tax

Syndicated talk show host Neal Boortz and Congressman John Linder (R-GA) have joined forces to write a book on the FairTax Plan—a proposal to replace the current system of federal income taxes, corporate taxes, Social Security and Medicare taxes, capital gains taxes, gift taxes, and estate taxes with a national sales tax on new goods and services that does not reduce the government's overall tax revenue.

Former attorney Boortz is the well-known Atlanta-based "libertarian" talk show host who, like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, spends an inordinate amount of time on the evils of liberalism, the Left, and the Democratic Party while turning a blind eye to big government Republicans and supporting Bush's "War on Terror." Boortz has drawn fire from Christians for his support of abortion and gay rights. He has also offended Southerners (he himself was born in Pennsylvania but was raised throughout the country as a "Marine brat") because of his negative comments about the Confederate flag.

Former dentist Linder represents Georgia's Seventh District, which includes the highly gerrymandered parts of five counties. He has been a member of the House of Representatives since 1992. Although Linder has received the designations "Hero of the Taxpayer," from Americans for Tax Reform, "Taxpayer Hero," from the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, and "Tax Fighter," from the National Tax Limitation Committee, he is ranked by Congressional Quarterly as "among Bush's strongest supporters." Linder's claim to fame is that he is "the primary sponsor of the FairTax." He actually introduced the first FairTax bill in Congress back in July of 1999. It is interesting to note that his rating on The New American magazine's "Conservative Index" for his term in the 108th Congress was 45. For this same period, the universally acknowledged "taxpayer's friend," Ron Paul (R-TX), scored a perfect 100.

Since Boortz has previous writing experience, and his name appears in larger letters on the book's cover, I will refer to Boortz as the author of The FairTax Book. This is not, of course, meant to imply that Linder had no hand in writing the book. Linder himself says in "A Word from Congressman John Linder" that "the inflammatory and rude references come from Neal" while he "provided the intellectual backdrop that allows him to be outrageous."

Boortz is certainly right when he describes the evils of our current tax system:

Our current tax system is one that punishes the behaviors Americans value and rewards the behaviors we abhor. Those in our society who work hard and achieve are punished with taxes that approach confiscatory levels.

Politicians have managed to mold our tax code into an instrument designed not so much for raising revenue to fund the legitimate operations of government, as to control the behavior of individual Americans and corporations, and to give politicians levers to pull and buttons to push to buy votes when reelection time comes around.

The FairTax Book contains whole chapters on the hidden evils of the withholding tax ("Politicians love withholding because it gives them a chance to grab their 'share' of your earnings before you even see your paycheck."), corporate taxes ("Business and corporations merely collect the taxes from individuals and pass them on to the government."), the cost of compliance with the tax code ("In 2002 individuals, businesses, and nonprofits spent 5.8 billion hours complying with the tax code — an effort that cost an estimated $194 billion."), the embedded costs of taxes in all consumer goods and services ("When you buy that loaf of bread, you're paying a portion of all of the bills, including tax bills, of every person or business entity that had anything to do with that bread."), and corporations moving offshore ("They're moving for one simple reason: to escape a punishing tax structure here at home.").

The abuses of the IRS merit not only a full chapter, but are mentioned throughout the book. Indeed, one of the continually stated purposes of the FairTax proposal is to eliminate the IRS altogether. However, whether this would actually be the case remains to be seen.

But rather than just calling for the elimination of Social Security and Medicare taxes, withholding taxes, corporate taxes, gift taxes, estate taxes, capital gains taxes, and personal income taxes, Boortz proposes to replace all of these taxes with the FairTax.

The FairTax Plan is currently pending in Congress under the name of "The Fair Tax Act of 2005." It is a consumption tax in the form of a national sales tax of 23 percent on new goods and services. Although it would "not be imposed on used or previously owned items," it would apply to all new goods and services: medical procedures, haircuts, new cars, new homes, gasoline, food, medicine, Internet purchases, and electricity.

The taxes currently imposed by the states would be unaffected by the FairTax Plan. Thus, states that impose a state income tax or a state sales tax would continue to collect those taxes.

The FairTax Plan would be administered through the states. However, this doesn't mean that individual businesses would not be dealing with the federal government. For acting as a tax collector for the federal government, both the states and the businesses that initially collect the national sales tax will be paid one quarter of 1 percent of what they collect.

But not only will all businesses receive a check from the federal government, so will all households. The FairTax plan includes a monthly check from the government called a "prebate" that reimburses each household for the taxes paid on "the basic necessities of life." These checks, which are based on "the government's published poverty levels for various-sized households," do not just go to the poor, they are "paid to everyone, rich and poor alike." Boortz cites as an example a married couple with two children receiving a monthly check for $492—regardless of their income.

Although the FairTax Plan would eliminate Social Security and Medicare taxes, it would not eliminate the programs. Boortz correctly explains that "under our current tax code, these programs can be maintained only by increasing the tax on those who work, reducing benefits for those who have retired, or by increasing the age of retirement." The FairTax Plan solves this problem because it would fund Social Security and Medicare out of general revenues.

So, instead of calling for the elimination of the various federal programs that feed off tax dollars, Boortz wants to merely change the way they are funded.

Boortz tells us that the FairTax idea originated with the group Americans for Fair Taxation (AFFT). He says that "the goal of AFFT was to develop a system that would raise the same amount of revenue for the government as our current income tax system, but which would be less intrusive, abusive, coercive, and corrosive." This means that the FairTax idea should have been discarded at the very beginning, for instead of saying that it was not fair that the government confiscate 10, 20, 30, or 40 percent of a man's income, the FairTax proponents did not even begin to tackle the root of the problem: the welfare/warfare state that drives the federal leviathan's insatiable lust for the taxpayer's money.

Over and over again, Boortz emphasizes that the FairTax is "revenue neutral." The rate will be set "to ensure that the federal government—and all the programs within it, including Social Security and Medicare—will receive from the national retail sales tax exactly what they had been receiving under the current tax system." The FairTax is "simply a new and equitable method for raising the same amount of money our old and complicated code does today." It "isn't about cutting spending or changing government benefits. It's simply a plan to change the way Americans fund their federal government."

The FairTax is designed to simplify the tax code, increase compliance, and make the government more efficient at collecting taxes. It is not about reducing the overall tax burden one cent. The book should therefore be discarded upon reading this line on page two: "This book isn't about saving us a penny in taxes." Boortz has the proverbial cart before the horse. He wants to fight for "a simpler, clearer way to fund our federal government" before he fights for "tax cuts and lower government."

Boortz laments that tax evaders, tax avoiders, participants in the underground and shadow economies, and users of offshore financial centers aren't paying their fair share of taxes. He rejoices that the FairTax will eliminate the "cap on earnings subject to the levy for Social Security," thus forcing "the wealthy" to contribute their fair share. The FairTax will "recapture" the billions currently lost "from Internet and catalog sales."

We know that governments are notoriously inefficient at everything they do. But is this always a bad thing? Why would anyone want to make the government more efficient at collecting taxes? We want the government to be just as inefficient as possible when it comes to tax collections. Just like we want the government to be just as inefficient as possible when it comes to launching an aggressive war, violating the Bill of Rights, or punishing dissent.

Boortz makes a lot of dubious, unsubstantiated claims for the FairTax that greatly exaggerate its benefits. He all but states that the FairTax will usher in the millennium.

The FairTax will not just increase economic growth, it will "send the American economy into warp drive." It will "bring a period of transformation and economic growth to America such as has never been seen before." "Millions of new jobs will be created." The FairTax will "double the size of the economy in the first fifteen years." After its implementation, "capital investment will increase quickly by a staggering 76 percent," "interest rates will decline by almost 30 percent," and "the economy will grow by 10.5 percent."

Although he disparages "soak the rich" sentiments and "economic class warfare," Boortz appeals to the poor and middle class. He contends that the FairTax will "create a financial bonanza for the poor and the middle class." It will "all but eliminate the tax burden on the middle class." The FairTax "would give the average income worker a 50 percent increase in take-home pay." The lowest income earners should support the FairTax because "for them it's all benefit and no burden." Correct, thanks to the prebate. For even though the purpose of the "prebate" is to cover "the basic necessities of life," Boortz acknowledges that there will be "money left over" for the poor "to invest in their own futures." The trouble with this is that the "money left over" belongs to someone else—"the rich" who will pay most of the taxes just like they do now.

Based on an unnamed study by Harvard economics professor Dale Jorgenson, Boortz maintains that the current price of consumer products includes embedded taxes of about 22 percent. Under the FairTax, these prices will "go down by roughly the same amount as the proposed FairTax rate of 23 percent." Consumers will be paying "at least 20 percent less for virtually everything they buy." A new home, even with the FairTax added to the price "may cost less than that home would have cost under our current tax structure." Everything will nearly be a wash, declares Boortz the economist. But not only does this ignore the basic laws of supply and demand, it is based on the fallacy that the costs of inputs in the production of a good determine the price of the output they produce.

The FairTax Plan is so good that even the states will want to adopt some form of it. The state governors that Boortz talked with said that under a national FairTax system, "They'd be very likely to eliminate state income taxes." Boortz's unnamed governors would also "welcome a move to taxing all goods and services with no exclusions or exemptions." Why, of course they would. They would welcome that right now, but could never get away with it. Naturally, Boortz maintains that with the addition of a tax on services, and with no exclusions or exemptions on any good or service, states would be able to reduce their sales tax rate "without losing a dime in revenue."

And then there are the "global implications of the FairTax." After the adoption of the FairTax, "foreign corporations will be compelled to build new plants in America" to remain competitive. Boortz envisions "the forward-thinking nations of the world" adopting "their own version of the FairTax," which will "spread freedom across the globe."

Is there any problem in the world that won't be fixed with the adoption of the FairTax?

In addition to the unsubstantiated claims that Boortz makes for the FairTax, there are three ridiculous lies of the FairTax Plan.

Lie #1: taxes would be voluntary under the FairTax. In his discussion of the origins of the FairTax, Boortz says that the AFFT sought "a method of taxation that would be totally voluntary, that would allow all citizens to pay what they choose, when they choose, by how they choose to spend their money." Boortz has the audacity to say that "there is nothing coercive about the FairTax." It is "a truly voluntary tax system." The government should allow you to "keep your money in an investment account of some kind, earning interest for you, until you decide to pay taxes to the federal government." The FairTax would allow people to "judge for themselves when and how they're comfortable making taxable purchases."

Well, if the FairTax system is voluntary, and allows everyone to pay what they choose and when they choose, what happens if someone decides that they don't want to pay any taxes to the federal government? The same thing that happens now: fines and imprisonment. The FairTax is not a voluntary tax at all. The whole idea is a contradiction in terms. Boortz's statement about people keeping their money until "they're comfortable making taxable purchases" is ludicrous. There is no way to avoid buying new items. One can buy a used car, a used house, and used clothes, but one cannot purchase used food. One could argue that our present tax system is also voluntary: Don't earn any income and you won't have to pay any income taxes.

Lie #2:the FairTax rate would be 23 percent. Throughout the book, Boortz gives the FairTax rate as 23 percent. It is not until near the end of the book—in the chapter, "Questions and Objections"—that he admits it is really 30 percent. But even then he still insists it is 23 percent.

Those of us who were skeptical from the beginning noticed this when we got to page 84. There Boortz used the example of a single mother with two children spending $45 a week on groceries. He claims that the removal of the taxes currently embedded in the price would lower the cost of the groceries to $35.10 (a dubious proposition). But then he says: "Add the FairTax, and the groceries would cost $45.58. I learned in the sixth grade that if an item cost $35.10, and I add to it $10.48 in sales tax, then I paid a tax rate of almost 30 percent—not 23 percent. Boortz says in the "Questions and Objections" chapter that "critics of the FairTax have a way of dwelling on this 30 percent figure." I wonder why? Although Boortz explains that he is using an exclusive rate rather than an inclusive rate to figure the percentage, his "mathematical equivalent of a game of semantics" still results in a FairTax rate of 30 percent. This is why Boortz prefers the national sales tax to be included in the price of each item—so the consumer doesn't realize that he is really paying an extra 30 percent in sales tax, not Boortz's new math amount of 23 percent.

Lie #3: the FairTax would abolish the IRS. Boortz claims that his book is about transforming the nation by sending "one of its most hated institutions," the IRS, to "that place in the government guano heap of history." The goal of the FairTax is to "eliminate the IRS." Boortz even jokes about IRS agents working at a fast food restaurant after the FairTax is implemented.

Calling the IRS by another name doesn't mean that its functions will be eliminated. Just as the income tax will be replaced by the FairTax, so the IRS will be replaced by some other federal bureaucracy to oversee the collection of the FairTax. It should not be forgotten that the FairTax is a national sales tax. According to The Fair Tax Act of 2005:

The Fair Tax Act also sets up a "Problem Resolution Office" and authorizes "problem resolution officers." There will even still be tax courts. Boortz himself also states: "We envision a department of the Treasury to deal with Internet and catalog sales, with stiff penalties for those selling into our communities who do not abide by the law." The FairTax will abolish the IRS in the same way that it will abolish the income tax—by replacing it with something else.

Besides the fact that it doesn't lower the amount of taxes seized from the taxpayers by the federal government and is based on unsubstantiated claims and ridiculous lies, the FairTax is fraught with other problems. In his Introduction, Boortz says that this book will explain the FairTax in detail. He will walk us "through the plan step by step, detailing both the good and the bad." Since Boortz never gets to the bad, I here present seventeen problems with the FairTax.

Problem #1:The FairTax hides the amount of sales tax being paid. Boortz explains how "the FairTax was designed as what's called an 'inclusive' tax—that is, the tax is included in the list price of the product." He reasons that "since our current income taxes are figured on an inclusive basis—that is, they are taken out of our paychecks, not added to them—it was decided to handle the sales tax in exactly the same manner." How could someone write a whole chapter on the evils of the withholding tax and then turn around and recommend a hidden tax like the FairTax? Boortz even has the audacity to claim that with the FairTax the "consumer is completely aware of what he is paying." Really? Suppose the FairTax is implemented next year. Go stand in front of a store and ask the typical American how much federal sales tax he paid on the item he just bought for $139? Give him a calculator and ask him again. Unless he is familiar with figuring percentages, the average American will not be able to tell you how much sales tax he just paid.

Problem #2:The FairTax is progressive. Boortz correctly identifies a progressive income tax with Karl Marx. Yet, because of the prebate, the FairTax sets up a progressive tax system like we have now. Millions of Americans will pay no taxes at all. Others will have some of their taxes offset by the prebate. "The rich" will still be paying the majority of the taxes—something Boortz says he considers "class warfare."

Problem #3: The FairTax is an income redistribution scheme. Boortz calls the Earned Income Tax Credit "a prime conduit for income redistribution from high-income earners to the poor and middle class." Why, then, would he promote a FairTax Plan with a prebate that in essence allows the majority of citizens to not only pay no taxes, but in many cases gives them money over and above that which they paid in sales tax? What's fair about making "the rich" subsidize the poor and the middle class? Boortz calls Social Security an "income redistribution and welfare program." But under the FairTax Plan, Social Security is even worse. At least now it is funded by payroll tax contributions that are independent of deductions for federal income tax. Thanks to the prebate, many people will receive a free retirement program via Social Security who never contributed a dime towards their retirement, or as Boortz says: "All benefit and no burden."

Problem #4:The FairTax creates new tax collectors. From doctors and lawyers to garbage collectors and tree trimmers—multitudes of individuals and businesses that never collected taxes before will be turned into tax collectors for the federal government. Will a teenage babysitter be required to collect the FairTax from her neighbors?

Problem #5:The FairTax creates new taxes. All Internet purchases will be subject to the national sales tax. So will heart surgeries, kidney transplants, and appendectomies—plus the drugs prescribed by the doctors doing the procedures. Want to attend a baseball, football, or basketball game? Better save up a little extra to take care of the FairTax that will be imposed on your tickets.

Problem #6: The FairTax creates new taxpayers. If there are no exceptions and no exemptions then churches and other non-profits will be forced to pay a national sales tax on every purchase. The FairTax will basically do away with not-for-profit entities. The FairTax would also count as taxable the purchases made by federal, state, and local governments. This means the government will be using taxpayer money to pay taxes to itself.

Problem #7: The FairTax makes it easier for the federal government to raise taxes. All Congress has to do is slightly increase the initial 23 percent rate. A penny here, a penny there; a quarter of a cent now, a half of a cent later. Just a little at a time, of course. It might be to compensate for inflation, to give seniors a cost of living raise, or to pay for some manufactured crisis like bird flu. Since the federal budget goes up every year, and the FairTax is supposed to be "revenue neutral," the FairTax rate will have to go up right along with the federal budget. You can count on an increase every year, for if government budgets are not under control now, why should we expect Congress to magically become fiscally responsible just because the FairTax is adopted? Furthermore, since Social Security and Medicare would be funded out of general revenues the FairTax rate would also have to go up to fund the ever-increasing cost of these programs. Then there are the escalating costs of the new prescription drug plan. And if the amount of the prebate "is updated every year to keep up with inflation," the FairTax rate will have to be raised in like manner. How can Boortz recognize that "there is absolutely no limit to the government's desire for your money" and then express hope that the FairTax rate "will go down in the future" if "Congress can keep government spending down"?

Problem #8: The FairTax makes it easier for state governments to raise taxes. In the name of simplicity and efficiency, the states would be inclined to follow the lead of the federal government. States that currently have no sales tax could add one. States that have exemptions on certain items could get rid of the exemptions so as to match the federal government. States that have no sales tax on services could begin taxing services like the federal FairTax Plan would do.

Problem #9: The FairTax has unknown and potentially huge transition costs. Boortz asks a good question: "How will the switch to the FairTax be made?" But then he gives a very naïve answer: "Cold turkey!" He explains that "on January 1, we'll begin to get our gross pay with no deductions." Boortz gives one "transition rule": The value of any inventory on hand December 31 can be used as a credit against collecting taxes in the next year." This should get accountants to work figuring out how to value each company's inventory the highest. Will it be specific identification, average cost, FIFO, or LIFO? But what if a company's fiscal year does not end on December 31? This will cause massive accounting problems. And especially for the federal government since the government's fiscal year begins on October 1.

Problem #10:The FairTax makes certain exceptions while supposedly having none. After saying that there are "no exclusions or exemptions" under the FairTax, Boortz specifically mentions exemptions for Internet access services and tuition. Therefore, his complaint that "exempting certain items—such as food and prescription drugs—would again open the door to an entire battalion of lobbyists to argue that the portion of the industry that they represent is clearly an essential product" is unjustified for he has already opened the door to that very thing.

Problem #11: The FairTax has great potential for fraud. Boortz envisions the prebate amount being issued to a card "like your bank debit card." Since every head of household would have one of these cards, there would be a great chance of criminals preying on people for their cards. There is also the possibility of counterfeiting, resulting in massive theft from the taxpayers. And since the FairTax only applies to new items, there will also be a tremendous incentive for new items to be reclassified as used or previously owned. Businesses could offer a slight increase in the price of a reclassified item in exchange for not having to charge customers the 23 percent national sales tax that would be due if the item was considered new. Enforcement of the "proper" classification of items would require an army of federal bureaucrats that would rival the IRS.

Problem #12:The FairTax has the potential to turn thousands of law-abiding Americans into criminals. Since the FairTax contains no exemption for even the smallest business, anyone who does not collect the FairTax on any good he produces or services he provides is breaking the law. Mow a yard—collect the tax. Babysit—collect the tax. Repair a car—collect the tax. If you don't collect the FairTax then you are a criminal. Once again, the FairTax would have a terrible enforcement problem.

Problem #13: The FairTax does not repeal the Sixteenth Amendment. When FairTax advocates discuss their plan, they talk as though the FairTax would result in the repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment that gave us the income tax. To his credit, Boortz doesn't make that mistake, but when many people read about "saying goodbye to the income tax," that is what they think. The FairTax bill now pending in Congress (H.R. 25 in the House and the identical S. 25 in the Senate), repeals Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that relates to income taxes and self-employment taxes and Subtitle C that relates to payroll taxes and the withholding of income taxes. The only mention of the Sixteenth Amendment in H.R. 25 is when it reports: "Congress further finds that the 16th amendment to the United States Constitution should be repealed." But to repeal Sixteenth Amendment would require a constitutional amendment. Are we to believe that Congress would vote to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment after the passage of the FairTax? And even if Congress did so it would still have to be sent to the states for approval by three-fourths of them. So, barring the repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment, what is there to prevent an income tax from being imposed again after a national sales tax has been enacted? And what is to prevent any of the other taxes replaced by the FairTax being re-imposed due to some unanticipated budget shortfall or "crisis"? Is Boortz that naïve to think that Congress will be satisfied with just the FairTax? And even if the Sixteenth Amendment was repealed after the imposition of the FairTax, any previous tax not on income could be brought back. Can Congress be trusted to do anything else? I can easily envision Congress proposing to lower the rate of the national sales tax in exchange for the addition of a supplemental Social Security tax because we need more money to fund Social Security. Then, a few years later, the national sales tax rate would be right back up to where it was before the "exchange."

Problem #14: The FairTax does not eliminate all federal taxes. Although it is implied throughout the book that the FairTax will be a replacement for the various federal taxes, there are some federal taxes that will still be with us under the FairTax. Even Boortz slips up one time and says that the FairTax would "replace virtually all personal and corporate taxes." Two examples of federal taxes that will still be with us under the FairTax are the excise tax on gasoline and the various taxes that one pays when purchasing an airline ticket. There is no mention of the federal gas tax anywhere in the Fair Tax Act of 2005. No list of taxes that are supposed to be eliminated under the FairTax includes the federal gas tax, which adds 18.4 cents to the price of a gallon of gas. So under the FairTax, we would have added to each gallon of gas federal excise tax, state excise tax, and federal sales tax. This is just the minimum. The states could also begin applying their sales tax to gasoline. A recent airline ticket I purchased had added to its price a federal excise tax of $15.28, a federal segment tax of $12.80, and a September 11th security fee of $10.00. And what about federal taxes on tobacco and alcohol? The FairTax will merely replace one visible tax with another while leaving intact the invisible ones.

Problem #15: The FairTax is not at all about lowering the amount of taxes the government collects. Boortz terms the FairTax a "tax reform measure, not a government reform measure." It "changes the way revenues are raised for the legitimate operations of the federal government." But if the FairTax raises the same amount of revenue to fund the same federal programs, then what does Boortz think the federal government does that is illegitimate? Is there anything he considers to be illegitimate? If so, then why would he expend so much energy on changing the way the federal government collects taxes instead of changing the amount that the federal government collects in taxes? The fundamental problem is clearly taxation, not the tax code. What is wrong with the federal government's tax code is not that it is too complex, but that it makes possible the almost $3 trillion a year that the federal government spends. As the French laissez-faire economist Jean-Baptiste Say (1767–1832) once said: "The best tax is always the lightest." Or, as our modern-day Say in Congress, Ron Paul (R-TX), says: "The real issue is total spending by government, not tax reform."

Problem #16: The FairTax doesn't even begin to address the root of the problem. Boortz does refer to Frank Chodorov(1887–1966), reminding us that he "once observed that, by enacting the income tax, the American government was proclaiming that all wealth belonged to the government, and whatever wealth the government did not seize from the person who created it should be looked on as a concession—a gift from the government." But Boortz doesn't quote Chodorov, and he gives no source that he is referencing. He subtly seems to imply that Chodorov was opposed to the income tax because it was an income tax and that, therefore, he might be inclined to support the FairTax if he were alive. But this couldn't possibly be true because Chodorov considered taxation itself to be robbery. How is justifying the federal government spending almost $3 trillion a year of the taxpayers money, as long as it is collected "fairly," any different from the viewpoint that Chodorov condemns? While making the case for not allowing exemptions from the FairTax for food, Boortz, in using the example of a wedding reception, inadvertently shows his true colors: "Would it be fair to allow a multimillionaire to spend $20,000 on food for a large wedding reception at his estate, and not pay any sales tax on that purchase?" Why, of course it would. It would be fairer than forcing the American people to pay a 23 percent national sales tax on every good and service they purchase.

Problem #17: The FairTax makes welfare universal. Millions of people who never took a dime from other taxpayers in the form of food stamps, SSI, AFDC, Medicaid, WIC, or housing assistance will now be on the federal dole via the prebate. The FairTax is welfare for the masses. It makes us all wards of the state. Perhaps it would be best, in the interest of equity and efficiency, if all the money Americans earned was just paid to the state and then distributed to every American in a "fair" manner. The government could just keep what it needed, redistribute what's left, and do it all without the FairTax.

The FairTax is not the solution. And because it allows the federal government to confiscate the wealth of American citizens less intrusively and more efficiently, it will become part of the problem—the problem of the ever-increasing, ever-intruding, ever-destroying welfare/warfare state. The FairTax is a fraud. Yet Boortz ties rejection of the FairTax to believing that America is a great country because of its government, "as so many politicians do." Politicians who oppose the FairTax do so because they "thrive on dependency."

The antidote to the fraud of the FairTax is a good dose of the wisdom of Murray Rothbard: "There can be no such thing as 'fairness in taxation.' Taxation is nothing but organized theft, and the concept of a 'fair tax' is therefore every bit as absurd as that of 'fair theft.'"

Boortz believes that the abolition of the income tax will make the bad day of April 15 "just another beautiful spring day." With its unsubstantiated claims, ridiculous lies, and numerous problems, the FairTax will ensure that everyday is a bad day, not just April 15.

Laurence M. Vance is a freelance writer and an adjunct instructor in accounting and economics at Pensacola Junior College in Pensacola, FL. See his Mises.org archive. Send him mail. Comment on the blog.

"... out of their hatred of the IRS ..."???

B.S. Show me a post where I have said I hated the IRS. Dislike ... yes. Think it's too expensive ... yes. Believe it to be grossly inefficient ... certainly. Hatred??? Hardly.

That sort of emotional response is saved for lollipops like you in your "Cult-Like" opposition to the FairTax - merely spouting the same old tired canards that have been rebutted and refuted time and time again.

If the FairTax doesn't pass, it will be due to people like you who have only an emotional response to any sort of change and have themselves a nice, comfortable niche all carved out ubnder the present tax system - and everyone else can be screwed as far as they're concerned.

And just what might those be, oh learned one? You've been asked to provide your desired alternative of a tax plan to the FairTax. Now'd be a good time to do that since you're going to "... push for meaningful tax and spending reforms that will really benefit America".

And don't just repeat the old "cut spending" and "reform taxes" nonsense. Let's see your actual plan in detail.

If you cannot see that true spending cuts goes hand in hand with tax reform, then I pity you.

Adopting a new tax structure to get rid of the hated IRS (yes, I dislike them too) is like jumping from the frying pan into the fire. If you had ever actually bothered to read my replies I have stated this "fair tax" plan might be workable, given true reductions in spending and putting some true safeguards into it. It would also be able to operate at a lower rate, I believe.

I will keep saying it, NO TAX REFORM WILL EVER WORK UNTIL THERE IS ACTUAL SPENDING CUTS!!!

I respectfully disagree.

Do you think that eliminating withholding and making people pay their taxes in one lump some annually (or monthly whatever) would have any effect on government spending?

That is an example of how changing the way we collect taxes would indeed have an effect on government spending - without waiting another 8 decades for spending cuts. jmho

When I say spending cuts, I mean real spending cuts. As in actually budgeting less money to certain matters receiving more than they need today and pork barrel projects.

Congress is unable to do it by themselves, having gotten fat off our labors. So, we taxpayers have to mount the effort for government to actually spend less money where can be.

Simply collecting the same amount of money differently, as a "revenue neutral" system must be, encourages them to just keep on spending.

It's time for the fourth branch of the government, "we the people," to stand up and make our demands heard.

How can any tax reform give relief as long as the government receives the same amount of money to squander as they feel? As long as they can raise taxes as they see fit, even under the Fair Tax proposition, there is nothing to force them to actually spend less. They are our servants, not our rulers. We need to remind them of that.

Businesses have to cut the fat to survive. No reason government can't also.

How do we do it? Try running and electing candidates that wish to actually serve the people, not go and build a career or a legacy of power, for starters.

Our budget problems and over taxation isn't due to how taxes are collected, it's because of how it is spent!

Thanks for the reply. And I agree with most of it.

However,
Our budget problems and over taxation isn't due to how taxes are collected, it's because of how it is spent!

The budget problems are a result of how taxes are collected. If we had been collecting taxes differently since 1913 - say with no withholding and have people paying in lumps sums every month or year - then the problems you're describing would not be as they are.

You cannot separate the method of collection from the resulting spending. To do so would be to ignore the strategy of the socialists - to prevent the populace from being aware of how much they pay for government. Their tools are withholding taxes (you simply get used to your net pay - there is no uproar at tax time due to tax liability - many people even like tax day because they think they're getting refunds!). Another useful socialist tool is business taxes. Business taxes are just another way to hide one's tax liability. In the case of business taxes, the taxes result in higher prices, lower wages, or reduced ROI - all of which add to the individual's tax burden. But in no instance is a business tax paid by a business - always by individuals.

I agree tha spending cuts would be great - anytime we can get them! In the last 87 years, how many meaningful spending cuts have we enjoyed?

Goverment still grows unbounded in the face of formidable opposition! Why so? Are you willing to concede that the method of taxation does indeed affect spending?

He may very well be a blow hard (I don't listen to him so I don't really know), but this article is little more than trying to pass off semantics and largely unfounded criticism.

The 'Fair Tax' plan definitely has a few holes, but the basic premise of charging people for consumption instead of income is prudent and wise. Our current tax system is designed to put all the choices in the hands of legislators who can then use that choice to curry favor with interest groups. Anything that places more choice into the hands of individuals is a VAST improvement.

When you say our elected reps have "gotten fat off our labors", there's no doubt about that. You'll find that almost all FairTax supporters agree with you about that and cuting spending. That's gotta be done, but it CAN'T be done with the present tax system as evidenced by almost 100 years of "not cutting spending".

It is far too easy with the present tax system for Congress to play its little "hide and hide" games of disguising tax levels by disguising tax boosts and fragmenting them all the while granting "special favors" taxwise to "special people" as urged by their K-Street buds. Until the tax burden really is made visible to the taxpayers to raise their ire to insist on spending cuts, we will continue as we are since few know how much their tax burden really is - and some have no burden at all due to the political mischief just mentioned.

The FairTax must be "revenue neutral" to be passed into law ... but that opnly applies to the period of time it takes to get it passed. After that there is no such requirement and - as taxpayers find out how much each and every one REALLY pays (and how much has been hidden fom them) they will certainly begin to push for drastically lowered spending. They also will then have a mechanism that allows them to "vote with their consumption" rather than talking with their Congressmen (which is presently generally about as effective as talking to a brick wall).

It's a start, certainly, but a good one and gives us some benefits that wouldn't otherwise be available. Think about it! And think why spending had not been lowered under the income-based tax system. Once that system is changed we'll be a lot better off politically from a tax and spending standpoint since we'll have the knowledge and tools to do something about it.

Excellent article - even goes into Beardlsey Ruml's idea for payroll withholding during WWII.

The real summary, though, is the last paragraph:

"After 50 years of comprehensive withholding at the source of American workers' salaries, people are used to wage withholding; most no longer question it. The relevant institutional machinery is entrenched, both through its administrative apparatus and through its acceptance in the minds of most taxpayers. Some resistance does remain. Representative Bill Gradison (R., Ohio), for instance, stated (U.S. House Hearings 1980: 46) that ``one of the greatest steps we can take toward holding down expenditures and making people aware of the cost to Government would be to reexamine our assumption that wages must be withheld upon.'' More recently (Wall Street Journal 1994), in conjunction with his proposal to replace the existing income tax with a flat tax, Representative Dick Armey (R., Texas) recommended elimination of withholding, calling it a ``crucial, deceptive device'' that has allowed government ``to raise taxes to their current level without igniting a rebellion.'' But such voices are few. As ideologies accommodate altered institutional reality, as citizens' views about what ought to be come more nearly to reflect what is, government manipulation of political transaction costs provides one key part of the explanation of how such politico-economic change has occurred. "

Thank you for the post!!!

It's instructive that Ms. Twight even gave a name to the human psychological response to whithholding: Transaction Cost Manipulation Theory..

The nut graf of the entire article is here, imo:

"Congress and the president learned, to their pleasure, what automobile salesmen had learned long before: that installment buyers could be induced to pay more because they looked not at the total debt but only at the monthly payments. And in this case there was, for government, the added psychological advantage that people were paying their taxes with not much resistance because they were paying with money they had never even seen."

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.