Posted on 05/05/2006 1:35:32 PM PDT by RobFromGa
In my letter to Rep. Linder and Mr. Boortz of August 24, 2005, I pointed out a number of what I called “serious misrepresentations” of the Fair Tax plan contained in “The FairTax Book”. I specifically named many of these by page #.
Now that the revised second issue is out, let’s see what they did to these passages in the book:
First edition page 55, you go on to explain that these embedded taxes are “in addition to the money taken out of your check in income and payroll taxes.”
Second edition- this line was eliminated. This means that they are acknowledging that the 22% embedded taxes INCLUDE the income and payroll taxes which was one of my points all along.
First edition page 59, “Once the FairTax takes effect, you’ll be receiving 100 percent of every paycheck, with no withholding of federal income taxes, Social security taxes, or Medicare taxes and you’ll be paying just about the same price for T-shirts and other consumer goods and services that you were paying before the FairTax.”
Second edition- “Once the FairTax takes effect, you’ll be in complete control of your paycheck as nothing will be withheld and your purchasing power for t-shirts and all other goods and services will be almost exactly what it was before the FairTax.”
This means that they are acknowledging that “purchasing power” will remain the same, not a big increase in purchasing power as they previously asserted with their larger paychecks/same prices verbiage. They eliminated the “100% of paycheck” wording.
First edition page 83: “Remember that the poor, along with everyone else—will no longer have Social Security taxes or Medicare taxes removed from their paychecks. Whatever they earn, they get on payday. For most of those we categorize as poor, this would mean an immediate 25 to 30 percent increase in their take-home pay.”
Second edition- “Remember that the poor, along with everyone else—will no longer have Social Security taxes or Medicare taxes removed from their paychecks. Whatever they earn, they get on payday. If employers leave this money in paychecks instead of taking it out of price, most of those we categorize as poor, this would mean an immediate 25 to 30 percent increase in their take-home pay.”
Of course, this acknowledges that the employer has a choice to make—to pay the worker his current paycheck and not reduce prices (meaning prices with FairTax added go up 30%) or to cut paychecks to present takehome levels. They cannot both give workers more takehome pay and reduce prices. The Free Lunch described in the first edition is eliminated.
First edition, page 84, you make it clear though that even though the workers will keep all of their paychecks for a big raise, you still believe that because of “the disappearance of the embedded taxes, the total price paid for consumer goods will remain very nearly the same”.
Second edition—“when you factor in the combined lower prices/higher takehome pay caused by the disappearance of the embedded taxes” prices will remain about the same.
This again acknowledges that they money currently deducted as taxes can either be used to increase take-home pay or reduce prices but not both at the same time. If they were being more honest here, they would have referred to purchasing power remaining the same rather than prices, but they are trying to put the best possible spin on this major admission.
First edition page 111, you tie it all together with a Quick Review in which you erroneously assert that “Here’s what happens when we pass and implement the FairTax plan:
“We start collecting 100 percent of our earnings on our paycheck.
“We all get virtual raises, since payroll taxes are no longer siphoned from our checks.
“The prices of consumer goods and services remain essentially the same, with the removal of the embedded taxes compensating for the added consumption tax.”
Second edition:
“We start controlling our earnings in every paycheck” (whatever that means)
“100% earnings” line is eliminated from the second edition. "virtual raises" is likewise eliminated.
“Our purchasing power for buying consumer goods and services remains essentially the same, with the removal of the embedded taxes compensating for the added consumption tax.”
This is a MAJOR difference in the Quick Review! In the first edition, they promised larger paychecks and prices remianign the same—which means a major increase in purchasing power. Of course this was a ridiculous promise. In the second edition, they say our purchasing power will be about the same.
They still left a lot of wrong and misleading verbiage throughout the book, but they addressed most of the concerns that I sent to them and removed those claims in the second book.
If it's enacted properly it sure will.
Of course you realize that no future Congress is bound in any way by laws made by previous Congresses. You cannot "enact it properly" to defend against that.
You're purposefully ignoring the vast majority of the text.
There's a reason direct taxation was a no-no in America for the first century and more in America.
It's because the founders and subsequent generations were smart enough to know how damaging and stupid direct taxes like the income tax are.
You're purposely ignoring the most important point of Fed 21, and the fact that the FairTax is 100% opposite with its "guaranteed revenue" provision. Read the FairTax bill, it is in there.
You're using the FairTax bill as an excuse to rule out consumption taxation, as usual.
If you disagree with a provision of 2525, fight to change that provision...don't sit here and defend the income tax and the status quo.
The income tax is the stupid tax, fatally flawed from its inception in whatever form.
If you were debating honestly, you would admit that. It's self-evident.
Of course you have overlooked the fact that Congress defines what is allowed in business deduction to even get to the point of determining what is defined to be income to be taxed.Not with the Flat Tax. That is spelled out very clearly and easily. You must be thinking of the current system.
Flatten a cowpie, and it's still a cowpie....and it still stinks to high heaven.
The income tax is a loser.
Your flat tax still allows government to peer into the minutist affairs of the individual American citizen.
It still does most of the bad stuff that the current monstrosity does, in fact.
And, you'll never sell it politically. It won't survive the class warfare attacks of the Left, and it plays to the worst caricatures of "rich" Republicans.
The Flat Income Tax is a complete political nonstarter.
Kind of like the situation we find ourselves in now. Some of us are actually trying to do something about it. There are, unfortunately, hordes of people who profit from the current system - at the expense of others.
I don't admit that. It may not be the best possible system but it is better than any other alternative I have heard, and I am working to get reduced marginal rates and elimination of some taxes through elections.
Our economy is doing great, and I think that any radical change in methodology esp at a time of War is insanity. I want to control spending, privatize entitlements as much as possible, and reduce our taxation rate to unburden the business owner and the wage earner.
I don't buy your premise that the US is in such horrible awful shape that our only chance to save our country is to let a bunch of half-baked crackpots rearrange EVERYTHING. I think we are in pretty good shape, an better than any other economy yet see in human history. I am an optimist about our future.
Morph the income tax cow patty a Fair Tax patty and it stinks too.
In other words, you're defending the income tax and the status quo.
Good luck with that.
There is nothing you can do about politicians being elected to make laws subject to the desires of those that elected them. You FairTaxers don't get to pass some sort of super-laws that never again get to be tampered with.
If you honestly think that you are trying to accomplish that you are delusional as well as dishonest.
Hey, if you wanna defend one of the planks of the Communist Manifesto, and attack the only plan that makes sense politically, economically and in terms of freedom, that's your lookout.
Just don't expect to make many friends with that position, and prepare yourself to lose eventually.
I'm working to improve the status quo.
You want to establish a new status quo and then defend that to the death.
Thanks for the well wishes. it looks like we're winning big.
Karl Marx also got haircuts, does the fact that you get haircuts make you a Communist?
That's a BS argument. It's the taxation and the progressivity of it that is contained in the CM. The Fair Tax is every bit as progressive and it throws the proles a big ol' prebate check every month from Daddy Sam. This argument won't hunt.
The fact that we have a progressive income tax doesn't make the US a Communist society. Are you saying that we are Communist?
I guess you are out of real arguments about the problems with the FairTax and the fact that they are admitting that they mis-represented the plan as a "boost your purchasing power" scheme for how many years?
The rules of the game are printed, and you can follow them too. But you keep throwing out innuendo and insinuations hoping to make yourself look so honest and forthright. I'm probably more conservative than you are.
And your economic optimism is admirable. Where did this robust economy come from? We all know the answer to that question - marginal tax relief. Gee, d'yuh think that if we kept ALL of our money and paid taxes only when we spent it that the economy would soar by another 10-15%? Jorgenson does.
What "we" would that be?
No "skipping", I just didn't add any words to it to make a fallacious point.
But then again, you folks are pretty good at adjusting the "facts" to make your 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.