Posted on 02/08/2006 5:07:55 PM PST by voletti
The President aims to end estate taxes for the wealthiest Americans. He also wants to scrap a $255 death benefit for the poorest The contrast in President Bush's new budget could not be more stark. On one hand, he wants to eliminate what he likes to call the "death tax" -- a levy imposed on a handful of the nation's biggest estates. On the other, he wants to end Social Security's lump sum death benefit -- a $255 check that the families of many of the nation's poorest use to help pay for their funerals.
There is a lot more in Bush's $2.77 trillion budget than that, of course. He'd boost spending for homeland security and the Pentagon, trim many popular domestic programs, and control the growth of Medicare by boosting premiums for high-income seniors and freezing or cutting payments for health providers, such as doctors, hospitals, and hospices. At the same time, the President asked Congress to make most of his first-term tax cuts permanent.
ESTATE PLANNING. That includes permanently eliminating the estate tax, or what conservatives like to call the death tax. Like most of what happens these days in the tax world, the story is complicated, but it goes like this: Starting in 2001, Congress began to gradually increase the size of an estate that would be exempt from tax. By 2009, estates of $3.5 million or less ($7 million for a couple that does the smallest bit of planning), would be tax-free. By 2010 all estates would be exempt from the tax, but only for one year.
So President Bush wants to permanently free all estates from the tax starting in 2011. The estimated annual cost: in excess of $50 billion in 2012, rising to more than $70 billion by 2016.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessweek.com ...
I see you're using many of the code words used by the Status Quo Lovers. That tells us a lot about you.
As for telling you about the size of my business(es) - I wouldn't think of it ... and I only tell the government about them because the income tax laws require it. I'd gladly pay more tax and not do that each year since it's none of their business (OR YOURS!).
From Wilipedia:
Some of the Institute’s more than 100 private sponsors and funders include The Atlantic Philanthropies, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, and the Rockefeller Foundation.
Good source of unbiased info there! < /sarc>
The Urban Institute has released a major study
You mean the liberal Urban/Brookings Institute which has released one of many rehashes of the William Gale articles on national retail sales taxes. An analysis using a strawman retail sales tax having nothing to do with the actual provisions of the FairTax legislation.
You will find the PDF rebuttal of the source of that so-called major study, and why it fails to apply to the FairTax legislation here.
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:
There shall be in the Department of the Treasury a Sales Tax Bureau to administer the national sales tax in those States where it is required pursuant to section 404, and to discharge other Federal duties and powers relating to the national sales tax (including those required by sections 402, 403, and 405). The Office of Revenue Allocation shall be within the Sales Tax Bureau.
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.
The Problems of the FairTax
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 Fraud of 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.
"It's a federal tax that replaces a few...."
The FairTax replaces all current federal taxes except for excises, which comprise about 5% of total federal revenues. If you are an SQL, 95% is the equivalent of "a few".
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.
In other words you and William Gale of Brookings Institute would not compare a new tax system with the tax system it replaces. You would rather compare apples with oranges instead.
By the way, the choice of expressing the tax rate was not Boortz', it is the way the legislation HR25 expresses the rate in maintaining comparative standard against the tax system being replaced.
From the one of the co-authors of the legislation as to the reason for the use tax inclusive rates as used in the legislation implementing the replacement of the current federal tax system with a retail sales tax:
| The Wrong Camera: The Denominator of the Tax Incidence Equation. Dan R. Mastromarco; LLM, Argus Group, Washington D.C. Tax Analysts Document Number: Doc 1999-32575 Citations: (October 8, 1999) B. Use a Consistent Size Screen to Portray It. [118] When considering the rate of a national sales tax, or any tax for that matter, one must always decide which of two distinct means of portraying this rate -- the "tax-inclusive rate" or "tax- exclusive rate" -- best expresses the tax burden. Which one we employ changes absolutely nothing in terms of the taxes that are actually raised or paid by the taxpayer under the taxing regime examined, in the same way that measuring a journey in inches or meters does not change the distance. However, how the rate is presented changes how the relative tax burden is perceived by those who wish to compare the merits of competing tax proposals. Confusion results when we compare alternatives under different measuring scales. [119] The sales tax is particularly susceptible to this confusion because state sales taxes are normally expressed on a tax- exclusive basis, while income, estate, and payroll taxes, as well as the Flat Tax and other VATs, are normally expressed on a tax- inclusive basis. If we were to express a sales tax rate as a percent of the product price as is done in the states, we would be unfairly overstating the burden of the tax when we compare it to what it is meant to replace at the national level. Or conversely, we would be greatly understating the relative burden of the federal income and payroll taxes for those who don't have time to learn the different measuring systems. [120] Presentation of a rate of tax on a tax-exclusive basis simply means that the rate of the tax is expressed as the tax paid over a base determined after the tax was already imposed (for example, taxable income under our personal income tax system that is net of the tax). In other words, a tax-exclusive rate would be defined as: $ tax paid [121] The rate therefore reflects the ratio of taxes paid to what is left in the base, such as net of tax income. [122] On the other hand, defining the rate of tax on a tax- inclusive basis simply means that the rate of the tax is expressed as the tax paid over the base before the tax has been imposed. In other words, a tax-inclusive rate would be defined as: $ tax paid [123] Since the base of the tax before the tax is imposed is always more than the base after tax (the denominator is greater), expressing the tax in a tax-exclusive way will always yield a higher rate. In other words, it will express the tax as having a higher burden. /56/ *** SNIP ***
[129] In making comparisons between alternative taxing systems it is important to ensure therefore that these comparisons are consistent, fair in terms of expectations, and are well explained. Fair comparisons eliminate and do not exacerbate confusion over a relatively critical point as the means of expressing the tax rate. The only means to do so is to ensure that a tax-inclusive rate is compared with a tax-inclusive rate. Footnotes:
|
All he'd have to do is look at his receipt, since the legislation requires that the amount of the federal tax be explicitly charged and stated on the receipt.
1. The AFFT statutory tax base does NOT keep the real size of government constant (transfer payment are not adjusted for changes in the Producer Price Level; government consumption is not adjusted for changes in the Consumer Price level; the real deficit is not held constant.)Reading the so-called Gale Rebuttal again (for the umpteenth time) I cannot find any discussion of these three items, or why Gale is wrong. Can you point me to specific language in the "Gale Rebuttal" that addresses, in any detail, ANY of these three claims? (Rebuttals generally speak directly to the claims they wish to refute.)2. The AFFT statutory tax base does NOT consider legal tax avoidance (no allowance is made for shifts to tax-free consumption:shifts from cash compensation to goods compensation; shifts to purchases of used items; shifts to tax-free import allowances.)
3. The AFFT statutory tax base does NOT consider illegal evasion (it assumes 100% compliance on 100% of retail consumption purchases.)
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."
The point here is erroneous and a logical fallacy in several respects as regards the implementation of the FairTax legislation.
Everyone pays the same rate (not graduated rates dependant upon income) at the retail counter and perceive the same burden on their purchases in the FairTax retail sales tax. In the perceptual sense everyone pays a retail tax at the same rate regardless of income or wealth with no distinction made in taxpayers at all.
Under the FairTax legislation, everyone also receives the same sales tax rebate, again without regard to income, wealth or actual expenditure to cover taxes for a nominal necessity level expenditure,( as defined by the HHS provertylevel statistics), contrary to the assertion otherwise of the person who authored the above points.
The income tax overtly and clearly exempts low income groups from all tax or even participation in the tax system at all, while expressly and perceptively imposing high rates on high incomes for no reason other than a difference in income. This overt and visible structure provide the basis of class warfare that can and is used in the political realm to influence electorate behaviour.
Under the income tax system, political hay is made on the difference in participation in the tax system between rich and poor, pitting one against the other and the inherent capacity of an income tax to underscore those differences in treatment. The creation of specific, clearly delineated classes in as overt a manner of possible is the essential feature used in "class warfare' aspects of the income tax system.
That is the essential purpose of structuring a heavily graduated tax system to create the overt classification of individuals, which is what Karl Marx actually advocated for social and political manipulation of the populace. Karl Marx expressly targets the use of "income taxes" for these reasons, not retail sales taxes which do not lend themselves to manipulations on a class basis, nor provide a ready means on maintaining a legal hold over the individual as income taxes by their very nature must.
The last of which, yours, using Karl Marx as a "straw man".
Sorry, no points for you. The "Fair Tax" is still !BS! and is no solution to **spending**, which is the real problem.
1. The AFFT statutory tax base does NOT keep the real size of government constant (transfer payment are not adjusted for changes in the Producer Price Level; government consumption is not adjusted for changes in the Consumer Price level; the real deficit is not held constant.)
No need to adjust as what the government pays today include taxes of the suppliers and all upsteam producers. Since the entire income and payroll tax system is replaced by the FairTax system, the gross (tax plus price) paid by govenment remains constant with what is paid today.
What you miss in your analysis is that the money supply does not change, the transfer of consumption goods and services do not change. The total amount paid (tax plus costs plus business profit) by government and all tax payers remains essentially constant with what it would be today, disregarding of course effects on GDP growth of a more efficient economy that arises from the consequence of repealing business income and payroll tax system. With GDP growth (a dynamic analysis) the actual rate that is necessary to achieve revenue neutrality would actually be lower than 23%.
2. The AFFT statutory tax base does NOT consider legal tax avoidance (no allowance is made for shifts to tax-free consumption:shifts from cash compensation to goods compensation; shifts to purchases of used items; shifts to tax-free import allowances.)
Cetainly it does, as it is inherent to NIPA data series. Cash compensation not reported in tax returns today do not show up in the NIPA:GDP accounts as such remains unreported and is not accounted for for obvious reasons. Folks using the underground cash economy to evade/avoid taxation do not report there cash transactions to government to be accounted for in economic data series. Thus any tax base that is derived from NIPA data is smaller by the unreported cash transactions that occur yielding a tax rate commensurate with the measurable ( as opposed to the underground cash economy) economy..
3. The AFFT statutory tax base does NOT consider illegal evasion (it assumes 100% compliance on 100% of retail consumption purchases.)
Answered above. The data series from which the tax base and consequent tax rate excludes evasion transactions and illegal commerce since such is not report for inclusion into the NIPA/GDP data base. The tax rate is thus an accurate reflection of the tax reporting economy, and leaves those elements that evade out of the base.
By no means does the FairTax tax rate assume 100% compliance on 100% of retail consumption purchases. It assumes those who report sales and business income today will continue to report sales and busines revenues under a retail sales tax scheme and that evasion and avoidence will remain essentially the same as it is today under the income tax which obviously has a large evasion/avoidence component.
All you've demonstrated by posting this trash by L. Vance in which he displays his ignorance of the FairTax is that you've learned how to use your search engine. It was published LAST YEAR on thest threads and well refuted not only in the original thread here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1538534/posts
but in the lead-in to this thread here (copied below):
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1541098/posts
So that you can stop wasting your time and ours by such nonsesnse as the Vance article, the lead-in mentioned said:
"Rebuttals to Mises Institute Fair Tax Review
RedStates.Org ^ | 12/14/05 | Merrill Bender
Posted on 12/15/2005 10:33:58 AM PST by Eaglewatcher
The author Laurence Vance gives a lengthy critic of Neal Boortz's and John Linder's book The Fair Tax Book. In Short, he misunderstands and misquotes (as many critics do) the actual workings of the Fair Tax.
Once you read his entire article you realize his real objection is not with the Fair Tax but with any Federal Taxation at all.
His Anarchist approach to no taxation in which he hates all forms of taxation is found at: http://www.mises.org/story/1975
The National Tax Payer's Union (NTU), Americans for Fair Taxation(AFFT), American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF), and many more support the Fair Tax HR25/S25. The Fair Tax is much more than just a book by a radio talk show host.
The Fair Tax is a well thought out and extensively researched Legislative package that takes a responsible approach to replacing the current archaic income and payroll tax system with a revenue neutral National Sales Tax system.
Unlike the Laurence Vance Article, the Fair Tax gives an alternative to the Income tax, Vance arguments are against all federal taxation whether it is Income tax or the Fair Tax.
For specific rebuttals read on:
Dec 14th, 2005: 08:29:48
Jeff Horgan writes: Hello Mr. Vance,
I started to read your review of the FairTax book and had to stop. I finished by skimming it. I realized what this was, a publish or parish review. Your review of the FairTax was so superficial that your review lacks any real weight or thought. You didn't understand that the 23% tax and the 30% tax reflected the same real amount. Simpler still you didn't even grasp that prices on the shelf would be represented in a tax inclusive form so that the consumer would more easily calculate the amount they are intending to spend but that at the moment of purchase the price of the product and the tax would be separated so the consumer could see their true tax burden. You made so many lazy and misleading arguments that this review will lacks substance to your peers. You needed to get your name on a published article as prerequisite to applying for jobs at a 4 year business school. If any of those schools read this article they will not be pleased with the quality of your work. I am sorry you wasted your time to write the review and I am sorry I wasted mine to read it.
Regards,
Jeff Horgan Richmond, Va
From the Fair Tax Blog Bill Rook Posts: http://www.fairtaxblog.com/20051213/liars-use-double-talk/
Liars use Double Talk to Lie about Lies in the Fair Tax
Ludwig von Mises Institute: Laurence Vance's December 12, 2005 "There is No Such Thing as a Fair Tax" review of The FairTax Book asserts three lies found in the book and asserts 17 problems with the Fair Tax. For brevity, this article shall only address the three lies. A follow-up article will debunk the perceived problems.
Lie #1: taxes would be voluntary under the FairTax. First we must realize that all of our actions have consequences. If an individual chooses to buy a new luxury car, he/she would have to pay federal sales tax. When the individual chooses to buy the new car, he/she is also choosing to pay federal sales tax. Section 505 of H.R.25, entitled PENALTIES details the civil and criminal penalties for non-compliance.
Under the Fair Tax, the federal sales tax would be reimbursed up to poverty level spending via the Family Consumption Allowance (FCA). An individual could purchase new food and services and still survive at poverty level spending. After the FCA, the net tax payments would be $0. The individual could spend significant additional sums of money on used items tax free. The individual could work and earn as much money as he/she possibly could--untaxed. If the individual chooses to purchase a standard of living above the meek poverty level, then net sales taxes would be due.
Under the current tax system, an individual, without dependents, is taxed from the first dollar earned at the FICA/Medicare rate of 7.65%. As annual earnings increase, additional progressive income taxes are due. Under the current system, the only option to not pay any federal income tax is to not work. That is not a valid option.
Given the above two alternatives, the Fair Tax provides the only valid choice. Although the qualifying "Tax Free" situation is narrow in scope, it is possible. When an individual chooses to purchase a standard of living above the poverty level, he/she is choosing to pay the federal sales tax. Therefore, the tax is voluntary. The assertion that item #1 is a Lie is false.
Lie #2: the FairTax rate would be 23 percent. We are talking apples and oranges here. Anyone who claims that both are just fruit is attempting to mislead and misinform the public. The Fair Tax is presented to replace the income tax. The income tax is an inclusive tax. The appropriate Fair Tax percentage for an inclusive comparison is 23%. Recognizing that some comparisons could benefit from an exclusive tax analysis, the following conversion table is provided.
Apples Oranges
Tax (inclusive) (exclusive)
Fair Tax 23% 29.9%
Payroll: FICA 6.2% N/A
Payroll: Medicare 1.45% N/A
Income Tax 10%-35% N/A
Income & Payroll
10% Bracket 17.65% 21.4%
15% Bracket 22.65% 29.3%
25% Bracket 32.65% 48.5%
28% Bracket <$90K 35.65% 55.4%
28% Bracket >$90K 29.45% 41.7%
33% Bracket 34.45% 52.6%
35% Bracket 36.45% 57.4%
When making comparisons, the appropriate inclusive/exclusive percentage must be used. Either column can be used, but a comparison of taxes between columns is wrong. Only apples to apples or oranges to oranges comparisons are valid. While we are at the comparison game, the following table provides sales verses income tax percentages with the average state sales and income taxes included.
Tax Inclusive Exclusive
Fair Tax + 6.33% Ave. State Sales Tax 26.6% 36.2%
35% Bracket + Medicare + 4.44% Ave. State Income Tax 40.9% 94.3%
Any argument quoting a combined Fair Tax and state sales tax rate above 36% exclusive is only valid when it is compared to a 94% exclusive combined state and federal income tax rate. However, as a business person filling out the national sales tax form, under the line that says "Gross retail sales of new goods and services," I'm going to put down the 23% inclusive rate. The assertion that item #2 is a Lie is false.
Lie #3: the Fair Tax would abolish the IRS. Laurence Vance debunks this one himself. "The Fair Tax will abolish the IRS in the same way that it will abolish the income tax--by replacing it with something else." The assertion that item #3 is a Lie is false.
The Fair Tax Act of 2005 does not call for a total closure of the federal government--not even a modest 1% cut in spending. In fact, Boortz and Linder promote the Fair Tax as revenue neutral. What does this have to do with abolishing the IRS? Nothing! Just as Vance's accusations have nothing to do with tax reform.
When Boortz talks about abolishing the IRS, he is referring to abolishing the intrusive nature of government inquisition into our personal and business finances. He is referring to eliminating a tax system where the government gets paid as a result of our individual and business efforts before we do. Income and payroll taxes are deducted from our pay before we see the first dime. Businesses must pay matching payroll taxes while the manufactured goods sit in the warehouse.
Will there still be inquisition into our personal finances? Sure, some. Employers will still report gross earnings to the Social Security Administration for calculation of retirement benefits. If a family wants to receive the FCA, they must file with the appropriate agency. The employer will file one form, and the head of household will file the other. Compare this to the current 1040 with the associated schedules A, B, C, SE, and so on. The inquisition will hardly be intrusive.
What about businesses, will their books be scrutinized? Again, yes, of course. Under Fair Tax, the burden of the tax collection process and paperwork will be shifted to businesses. However, this new responsibility for the collection process and paperwork will be significantly less cumbersome and intrusive than the current system. Let's look at a business situation, a Motion Picture Business. A big star with a lot of clout will demand a percentage of gross sales. Gross sales are easy to calculate. Just add up all sales and calculate the split. The Fair Tax is similar to this example. Businesses must track and total gross consumer sales, an easy number. Twenty-three percent of that tally is consumption tax. Send it in.
Applying this analogy with the current tax system, the actor would demand a cut of net profits. What are net profits? Bingo. They have to be defined. What are the valid expenses? Can the "Making of Footage" for the DVD's be counted as a legitimate expense? What about product placement fees? Does that income count when calculating net profits? The actor's agent and lawyer will lobby one way on an issue and the movie company's lawyer will lobby the other way. A lot of time and effort will be spent on details as each side lobbies for a better deal. Under the current tax system, the IRS will audit a business and demand justifications for every expense. Collecting, maintaining, and defending such justifications becomes a dauntingly expensive task, just to comply with the tax code.
The market (buyers and sellers) determines the prices of goods and services. Under the Fair Tax, businesses will be taxed 23% of the gross sales--an easy calculation. Businesses must operate within the means provided by their remaining 77% share of the gross sale. Alternately, a business could determine the pretax market price for their goods and services and keep 100%. They would then add an additional 29.9% at the till for sales tax--again, easy calculations. Both methods result in the same dollar amount of taxes; it really is just a matter of semantics. If the wrong semantics (math equations) are used, however, the numbers will not work out.
We must look beyond the rhetoric for or against the Fair Tax. We must develop an understanding of how Fair Tax changes will impact our individual lives. We must look through the rhetoric and determine the motives of the activists that lobby for or against the Fair Tax and then make our own decisions. Regardless of choosing 23% or 30%, the dollars involved are the same when used in the proper equations. The Fair Tax is revenue neutral. The IRS will be replaced by another agency that has a less intrusive reach into our personal and business lives. This change will save individuals time and stress. The change will save businesses time and money. The vast majority of the people will benefit, only a small number of accountants, tax lawyers, and bookkeeping professors making their livelihood off the current inefficient system will suffer.
References: http://taxes.yahoo.com/rates.html, http://thestc.com/STrates.stm, http://www.nber.org/~taxsim/state-marginal/, Fair Tax Act of 2005"
Sorry, but you're the liberal moonbat by trying to claim the FairTax is socialist.
Nothing could be further from the truth (as is also true of most of the stuff you've posted on this thread).
Another Squirrel shows his pretty little pointy head with tinfoil hat and all.
You can't even come up with your own comments but have to try to recycle those old chestnuts already kicked in the shins. That also is a common SQL tactic - say if enough times so that the lie will come true. Sorry - it doesn'w work that way.
Why do YOU post that bunkum again??? Don't you remember it's already shown to be nonsense as shown in post #52??
Please notice that at no time did I post any personal attacks, or call anyone names. Your and your bunch blew your credibility when you hijacked the thread with your snake oil and hokum.
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."
What is free about a Social Security system funded by Retail Sales Taxes that everyone must pay? Remembering of course that the current tax system does indeed have personal exemptions, standard deductions and EITC and thus is free to many currently. (Not to mention that large personal exemptions also exist in every income tax proposal (e.g. "flat tax" etc.) which provide the same income tax progressivity as the current system does.
The essential feature is that in going to a retail tax system everyone will be pay the tax and few will have a net negative effective tax where today there a large groups of non-taxpayers who pay neither SS/Medicare yet receive benefits therefrom. Yes there are folks do actually receive SS system benefits without paying a single penny in SS taxes and regardless of the EITC.
OTOH, I would bring your attention to a often overlooked fact that all income groups have retail expenditures which are taxable, but not all incomes are taxed or reported today. In point of fact lower "income" groups actually spend more that the income they report to government, (including welfare, SS medicare, retirements, insurance benefits etc.). Expenditure is not directly related to income as it is accounted for in most government statistics that is especially true of the income/payroll tax base.
Refer Consumer Expenditure Survey data on that one. http://bls.gov/cex/2001/Standard/income.pdf
Note expenditure versus total household income data at annual income levels less than $30,000
| Extracted from Table 2. Income before taxes: Average annual expenditures and characteristics, Consumer Expenditure Survey, 2001 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Complete reporting of income a/ | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
If the Kennedy family had paid estate taxes we could retire the national debt.
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.