Posted on 04/03/2006 3:27:33 AM PDT by Man50D
April 2, 2006 Please do this experiment with me. Take a look at your last week's pay stub. See that nice big figure on top? O.K. I know it's customary to complain about salaries. See that relatively nice big figure on top? Now look at all the figures below that start eating away at your pay, leaving you with the hungry little number at the bottom. Draw a line through all those pay-stealing numbers and circle your gross pay in red. That's the amount you would receive under the FairTax.
That's right. No deductions for Social Security, no income tax, no payroll tax. No federal tax of any kind. Of course, if you have deductions for health insurance, IRA or any other saving plan, they would remain, as well as any state tax.
It's your money. Why should you have to hand it over to Uncle Sam? O.K. We do need government for some things -- like defense.
But that's not even the point. Under the FairTax, government would still receive the same amount of revenue that it receives now -- from a national consumption tax. Imagine -- no more Big Brother IRS looking over your shoulder, harassing you for every clerical error. No more politicians micromanaging your life by giving you tax breaks if you live your life according to their whims, or punishing you if you don't.
You get to choose when and for what you pay tax. Only new goods and services would be taxed, not income, and not used goods. The poor would still get a break -- in fact, they would be better off, along with most taxpayers and the entire U.S. economy. Every household would receive a monthly pre-bate equal to the taxes on necessities up to the poverty level.
Not only that -- every item would be cheaper, because built-in federal taxes would be eliminated -- so the poor would have more money to pay for cheaper goods. Of course there's no free lunch -- the sales tax would be hefty -- 23 percent. But the benefits would be substantial.
For instance: With the elimination of the enormous, bulky IRS monster, the cost of tax compliance would be drastically reduced. Today, hidden income taxes and the cost of complying with the federal income tax represents 20 percent of all retail prices. Built-in taxes raise the price of everything you buy. Corporations simply pass the cost along to the consumer. With those built-in taxes eliminated, prices will fall.
And that creates another bonus -- increased exports of U.S. products, not U.S. jobs. When products become cheaper due to the absence of built-in taxes, they will be more attractive in overseas markets. That benefits the domestic work force. At the same time, foreign goods would become more expensive, because the FairTax would be applied to them. That would further increase U.S. exports.
The FairTax would also tap a new, unexpected revenue source -- criminal activity. Criminal wealth is currently not taxed, because criminal income, of course, is not reported. But when criminals spend their ill-gotten gain for new goods and services, that money would be taxed. This untapped criminal revenue is conservatively estimated at one trillion dollars.
Finally, the IRS estimates that 25 percent of taxpayers avoid paying their fair share. The FairTax would be significantly more difficult to avoid, less cumbersome, less onerous, and would no doubt encourage more compliance.
Because the FairTax would be, well, fair.
Mike Dickson is a FairTax supporter. He can be reached at free@cybersol.com
For more information go to: www.fairtax.org or call 1-800-FAIRTAX.
You're VERY right!!!
Neither you nor anyone else has ever been able to show that and here have been many studies by recognized economists that show just the opposite.
More of your horse-puckey!!
As you know Rightie, the prebate is a reefund of tax paid not "welgfare" in any respect. No more so that your April 15 tax refund from the IRS.
Why post such nonsense? Are you eager to be observed as a fool or a fraud???
As has been shown repeatedly to you the amount paid in the form of embedded tax is mush, much smaller that the amount under the FairTax.
The requirements for the prebate are a valid SSN and a lawful residency - neither of which most illegals would have.
Several people have pointed out to you that the prebate is nothing like welfare, so why keep repeating that refrain???
There are people that will lose out financially under the FairTax, just as there are losers under any radical tax change.
There are many, many people that benefit from the existing system. Their benefit pales in comparison to what it costs everybody else, however. In money and liberty.
So if you define "rational" opposition as something that has first considered the overall good of Americans, then I've not seen any that qualified as "rational" either.
Right tinker. Keep snorting your pixie dust. I provide sourced material and all you can say is 'untrue' to dispute it. You are so full of it, it is not even worth reading any of your other anal replies.
If we could only depend on the honesty of all business including corporations to pass along this reduction I would have more faith in the Fair Tax. I just have little faith that many business will pass the reduction along. Guess we have to give it a try.
Don't you guys ever get tired of spamming this board with your crap?
You hit the nail on the head. I knew something was wrong and I just didn't see it. This needs lots more thought.
It has nothing to do with 'honesty' of businesses. It has to do with the tax savings going mostly to the individuals, thus the businesses don't have the savings to pass on to individuals.
Sorry, but there was no such assumption by any FairTax researcher as to what would occur as a result of the FairTax. Your so-called "sourced" material was merely a series of attacks launched by you and other anti-FairTax members of the SQL Squads.
The only assumptions the researcher made were for the purposes of his modelling software - not the real world. Nor did he ever make such a prediction as some of you are also wrongly stating.
Your comments are still horse-puckey.
"It has nothing to do with 'honesty' of businesses."
... he said, speaking for his own business & its practices ...
It was sourced in Money Magazine and confirmed in e-mail sent to a freeper by the fairtax researcher.
The only assumptions the researcher made were for the purposes of his modelling software
Gee, I thought you said no such assumptions were made. You can't keep your story straight. I can't blame you, you are so full of it, it would be tough to.
- not the real world. Nor did he ever make such a prediction as some of you are also wrongly stating.
Umm, no you were the one who had no clue what the difference was between a prediction and an assumption. I said assumption and you kept calling it a prediction. But we needn't go into history of the foolish posts you make. There is only so much bandwidth.
Your comments are still horse-puckey.
Of which you offer no refute. Of course you can't, because it is a well-established fact. Shoot, Boortz has admitted it. Most of your fairtax buddies have admitted it. You are the last one stuck on stupid.
It appeared in a magazine article by an anti-FairTax writer and was bvery probably taken from the nonsense you SQL Squad members kept hammering away on in FR. That's hardly a "source".
The economist himself made no such statement and has frequently said that the FairTax is preferable since it boosts the economy to a greater extent. He made no assumptions that wages would be reduced in the real world as a result of the FairTax but only as a mechanism used in his model software so my statement was quite correct. Your claims he found that wages would fall are the claims in error - but that's par for the course with you it seems.
Nor has Boortz "admitted" any such thing. You merely can't comprehend what he has said. But, hey, misstating things is your stock in trade. Along with shovelling out horse-puckey ...
It was a mostly favorable article to the fairtax. You are truly deranged.
"... mostly favorable ..."????
Yeah, right!!! Certainly one of us is "deranged" - however it's you. The article was nothing but a hitpiece.
OK, then where is the AFFT rebuttal to this article???? AFFT always refutes negative articles which are published about it. AFFT could have easily contacted Jorgenson in the last 6-7 months and cleared all this up. AFFT won't refute it because there is no refuting it. Boortz has admitted it is misrepresentated. 90% of FreeRepublic fairtaxes have admitted it. Dr. Jorgenson has admitted it. It has been exposed in a major magazine article. It has been exposed as a lie on freerepublic for many years prior to this. But AFFT remains silent on this issue. I would give you $500 if you can get AFFT to clear this up with Jorgenson. I know they won't, because they are lying bastards who have been caught in a lie and it would ruin a major part of their propaganda if they had to be honest on this point.
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.