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, lets 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, youll be receiving 100 percent of every paycheck, with no withholding of federal income taxes, Social security taxes, or Medicare taxes and youll 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, youll 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 elsewill 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 elsewill 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 maketo 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 editionwhen 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 Heres 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 samewhich 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.
I am glad, then the point is mute with you. But for seven years fairtaxers have been saying paychecks will go up and prices will go down. Everyone is a winner and there are no losers. The simple truth is paychecks will go up, but so will prices. People with after tax savings will have to pay taxes on that money again and will see their buying power decrease. There are just many people who are sick of being sold snakeoil.
Let me translate the multitude of (juvenile-sounding) words of the anti-FairTaxers on this thread:
"I support the Income Tax and the IRS code."
Well that's fine and good. But even if it's a wash when it comes to receiving and paying... is it still not a good plan?
I personally wouldn't care if the tax percentage was 50%... if it stopped Washington from their entitlement, gave me the power to spend and repealed the 16th amendment... I'm still for it.
The only axe to grind I have is with Washington. The death tax, the "robin hood" EITC credits, the crazy spending they do to enforce such tax codes... you know if any other business had to spend as much as they do to support thier "product"... they'd give it up. It's the control they have that keeps them in business.
Thanks for your replies. I will do more homework.
Me neither.
What the antis always conveniently forget to tell everyone is that the rate, as long as it is revenue-neutral, says nada about whether the FairTax is a good idea or not.
The needed rate is merely a reflection of TOTAL FEDERAL SPENDING.
And with the FairTax, it will finally be COMPLETELY OUT IN THE OPEN FOR EVERY TAXPAYER TO SEE.
Visibility is one of the many great features of the retail sales tax.
Visibility, combined with the fact that all Americans will finally be taxed equally, is the only path to beginning, politically, to getting a handle on the massive federal spending problem.
As long as it continues to be hidden by the shell game we call the federal income tax system, people just don't understand what's being done to them.
No it isn't. Far from it. It is FUNDAMENTAL reform.
We don't need a fair tax but much much lower taxes. If everyone is being robbed it's no consolation to know that everyone is being robbed in the same way.
Two points: One, it does matter how you're taxed, as well as how much you're taxed. That is especially true when so much of what people are paying is hidden. Secondly, everyone is not paying the same thing. Some people who have been able to afford to buy politicians have purchased protection.
Both Linder and Bortz admit that their proposal is "revenue neutral." That means taxpayers will continue to be over-taxed and will continue to be hit with tax increases almost every day the legislators are in session.
You need to give some serious thought to what it means politically to getting all taxes bundled into ONE TAX and VISIBLE.
ANTI-FAIR TAXERS WOULD NATURALLY BE:You forgot: E. Any person with an I.Q. above "moron" level.
Let me translate the multitude of (juvenile-sounding) words of the anti-FairTaxers on this thread: "I support the Income Tax and the IRS code."How about "I think the FairTax is a bad idea and would be worse for America than our current system (yes, it could be worse)."
Is having a hidden tax system a good thing, YN?
Would having a visible form of taxation be a good thing, politically?
Simple yes or no answers will suffice.
The needed rate is merely a reflection of TOTAL FEDERAL SPENDING. And with the FairTax, it will finally be COMPLETELY OUT IN THE OPEN FOR EVERY TAXPAYER TO SEE.Except for the part that's not, like the federal taxes the state and federal governments would be paying (more than twice the current "hidden" corporate income tax) and would be "hidden" in our state and local sales, income, and property taxes.
Is having a hidden tax system a good thing, YN? Would having a visible form of taxation be a good thing, politically? Simple yes or no answers will suffice.No, a "hidden" tax is not good so why do you support a plan that would "hide" more taxes than the current system.
A Comparison of the FairTaxSM, the Income Tax,
and the Flat Tax August 2001 |
FairTax, H.R. 25
Linder-Peterson |
Federal Income Tax
Pre-2001 Law |
Flat Tax, H.R. 1040
Armey |
|
16th Amendment |
Proposes repeal. |
No change. |
No change. |
Complexity |
Individuals do not file. Businesses need only to deal with sales tax returns. |
Very complex; 20,000 pages of regulations; I.R.S. incorrect over half of the time. |
Withholding continues. Individuals and businesses must still track income and file income tax forms. |
Congressional Action |
23% Linder/Peterson Fair (H.J.Res45) - Will repeal the 16th Amendment. |
Used by lobbyists and the wealthy for tax-breaks and loopholes. Used by bureaucrats for social engineering. |
Rep. Armeys H.R. 1040 has some problems, but is far superior to current law. |
Cost of Filing |
No personal forms are filed. Significant cost savings. |
$225 billion in annual compliance costs. 1 |
Significant simplification costs are somewhat reduced. |
Economy |
Un-taxes wages, savings, and investment. Increases productivity. Produces significant economic growth. |
Taxes savings, labor, investment, and productivity multiple times. |
Imposes a tax burden some of which is still hidden in the price of goods and services. |
Equality |
Taxpayers pay the same rate and control their liability. Tax paid depends on life style. All taxes are rebated on spending up to the poverty level. |
The current tax code violates the principle of equality. Special rates for special circumstances violate the original Constitution and are unfair. |
The flat tax is an improvement over the current income tax, but it is still open to manipulation by special interests. |
Foreign Companies |
Foreign companies are forced to compete on even terms with U.S. companies for the first time in over 80 years. |
Current tax code places unfair tax burden on U.S. exports and fails to neutralize tax advantages for imports. |
A flat tax taxes exported goods and does not tax foreign imports to the U.S., creating unfair competition for U.S. manufacturers and businesses. |
Government Intrusion |
As the Founding Fathers intended, the FairTax does not directly tax individuals. |
Current tax code requires massive files, dossiers, audits, and collection activities. |
A flat tax still requires personal files, dossiers, audits, and collection activities. |
History |
45 states now use a retail sales tax. |
The 1913 income tax has evolved into an antiquated, unenforceable morass, with annual tax returns long enough to circle Earth 28 times. |
A flat tax just wont stay flat. Starting out nearly flat in 1913, the income tax grew out of control with top rates over 90% until the Kennedy administration. |
Interest Rates |
Reduces rates by an estimated 25-35 percent. Savings and investment increase. |
Pushes rates up. Biased against savings and investment. |
Reduces rates 25-35 percent. Neutral toward savings and investment. |
Investment |
Increases investment by U.S. citizens, attracts foreign investment. |
Biased against savings and investment. |
Neutral toward savings and investment. |
IRS |
Abolished. |
Retained. |
Retained with reduced role. |
Jobs |
Makes U.S. manufacturers more competitive against overseas companies. Escalates creation of jobs by attracting foreign investment and reducing tax bias against savings and investment. |
Hurts U.S. companies and decreases available jobs. Payroll tax a direct tax on labor. |
Positive impact on jobs. Does not repeal payroll tax on jobs. |
Man-hours required for compliance |
Zero hours for individuals. Greatly reduced hours for businesses. |
Over 5.4 billion hours per year. |
Reduced. |
Non-filers |
Reduced tax rates and fewer filers will increase compliance. |
High tax rates, unfairness and high complexity harm compliance |
Reduced tax rates and improved simplicity will improve compliance. |
Personal and Corporate Income Taxes |
Both are abolished. |
Retained. |
Retained in a different form. |
Productivity |
Increases. |
Inhibits productivity. |
Increases. |
Savings |
Increases savings. |
Decreases savings. |
Increases savings. |
Visibility |
The FairTax is highly visible and easy to understand. No tax is withheld from paychecks. |
The current tax code is hidden, embedded in prices, complex, and incomprehensible. Taxes are withheld from paychecks. |
The business component of the flat tax and payroll taxes are hidden and would be embedded in prices. Taxes are withheld from paychecks. |
[1] Testimony by the Arthur Hall, Tax Foundation and before the House Ways and Means Committee, 1998.
Complete and utter hogwash.
Complete and utter hogwash.Well the Real Worldsm is a whole lot different that FairieLand.
It's from the Land of Reality...a place you've never bothered to visit.
What is this, your fifth year as a sophomore?
It's from the Land of Reality...a place you've never bothered to visit.It's web address wouldn't be www.fairtax.org, would it? If so, that's a long way from the Land of Realitysm.
What is this, your fifth year as a sophomore?No, I graduated quite a while ago. How are the schools these days? It seems to me they aren't doing a very good job teaching basic economics. If you ever take it, let us know how it is.
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.