Fair Tax, Foul Politics [NRO on FairTax]

Fair Tax, Foul Politics ^ | August 16, 2007 | NRO Editors

[ari-freedom]

but the excise and other taxes are similar to sales taxes
-
yes they are. And they were used to control behavior.

[Bigun]

People remember what they see often over something the see only rarely as in once a year! Daily, perhaps many times daily is very often. People will be acutely aware of what the government is costing them unlike the current income tax where so much of what they are paying in hidden from them. That is the ones who do pay. Many perceive that they don't pay at all currently!

The FairTax bill is THE most throughly researched piece of legislation ever introduced in congress. It most certainly WILL work as advertised, a fact which scares the bejesus out of some on this forum. That is quite apparent!

[ari-freedom]

ok. quick! how much did you pay last year in state sales tax? Now, how much did you pay last year in income tax?

[Bigun]

"The Intent of the individual income tax is for political and social control not revenue collection. The Individual Income tax is maintained to establish and hold every person in the country perpetual legal jeopardy. That is a situation that must end with the repeal of the income tax from the statutes, and the prohibition of its use by Constitutional amendment that future generations will not face the same manner of manipulation and interference in their lives.

“Maybe we ought to see that every person who gets a tax return receives a copy of the Communist Manifesto with it so he can see what's happening to him.”

- T. Coleman Andrews, Commissioner of IRS, May 25, 1956 in U.S. News & World Report.

[ari-freedom]

that is true with any kind of tax. Don't be fooled. There is no such thing as a nice happy voluntary tax. At least the income tax doesn't try to fool people into thinking it is nice. It is in your face, you get the big tax bill and there will be incentive to lower it.

[fabian]

I think you are wrong...they were as less intrusive as possible but neccessary to run the government. It is income taxes that demoralize and look to penalize and control successful labor...the more you make, the more you pay. The whole idea of an income tax was not included in the thinking of the founding fathers, for good reason.

[ari-freedom]

yes it will be more intrusive. Govt will now be able to control behavior simply by raising rates on items they don't like. Most people won't notice they are being nickeled and dimed to death. If they do, they will cheat and then the govt will have to watch every transaction you make or just dump the whole thing.

The internet and services will be taxed. So will non profits. We never tried anything like this in our history...there's something to be said about the devil you know.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

1. Abolish the IRS and ELIMINATE that portion of spending from the Federal Budget. Do not reallocate the dollars, just cut them. That alone puts a good sized dent in the deficit (about 15% of the current estimated deficit).
The IRS is no where near 15% of current deficit. And you will need a strong enforcement arm to enforce the FairTax collection. Probably zero savings here, and no less intrusive.

The current deficit will end up around $140 billion. The IRS' annual budget is around $20 billion. So that's about 15% of the deficit.

For retail sales, mechanisms already exist and are used daily for sales tax collections. For B2B, the way the Chinese do it is quite ingenious, simple, and straightforward. Invoices are "purchased" from the government for the tax value required for the invoice amount. The payee is only obligated to pay the invoiced amount, and only when presented an official invoice.

For example, I buy a $10,000 CNC lathe from you. I will pay when you give me an official invoice. You "buy" an invoice from the government for $2700 - 27% of $10,000. The government gets the money as soon as you get your invoice, and I will only pay when you give me an invoice; until that point I have no legal obligation to pay you.

And yes, it does work and it works VERY well. I do it all the time when I'm in China. No delinquent taxes, because if you can't pay the taxes immediately on a transaction, you don't get to do the transaction. It forces you to "pay cash" rather than "run on credit" when it comes to taxes.

2. Eliminate the Prebate. Completely. It's a dumb idea, and would take a lot of work to process.
Good idea, but you just lost all the freeloaders. And they represent a sizeable chunk of the population.

The prebate is to provide an equivalent to the standardized deduction. Basically tax-free on the basic income needed to survive, so someone can pay for the minimum costs for food and shelter.

3. Anything regulated by the FDA - food, drugs, etc - are exempt from the FairTax. Your basic needs - food and medicine - are not taxed.
The reduction in the taxable base frome exempting these items caused the calculated rate on everything else to go up substantially.

No, the vast majority of your standardized deduction covers your typical consumption of such items. The average person spends around $600/month on FDA-regulated items. That's around $7200/year, less than the standard deduction.

4. Mortgage payments are exempt from the FairTax. Your mortgage company will not charge the tax.
Do you mean exempt housing purchases from the FairTax? If a new home is $200,000, then the price will not go up to at least $260,000, is that what you are saying? Ditto answer to #4. Tax rate on everything else goes higher.

No, right now mortgage interest is deductible, and for the majority of the lifetime of your mortgage that is MORE than 27% of the principal payment. Meaning that it's probably a push in terms of tax income.

In fact, assuming a 30 year mortgage, you're not going to reach the point where interest is 27% or less of the total monthly payment until you're 25 years out. And the time-value of money saved for those first 25 years will easily offset the extra payments you'd "make" on the last 5 years of the current system.

5. Cut the FairTax rate down to 27%, which would result in a 10% reduction in revenue to the Government. Give them less!
Why do we need the FairTax to do this? If we can cut the size of government in a politically tenable fashion, lets do it. In my view that IS THE ENTIRE PROBLEM.

I agree. However, if we're completely rewriting the taxation scheme, start with it already set lower. Don't shoot for revenue neutral, shoot for a reduction in revenue. I bet even 27% - given the above requests - would still result in a surplus. Probably could shoot for 25%. And that is a LOT lower than we're all paying now - 15.3% for FICA, and more than 10% for income taxes...

[Mark was here]

One man, one vote, one equal total tax bill, that is if you believe everyone should be equal under the law.

If you think percentage rates, or schemes where individuals pay differing amounts is acceptable, then you truly do not believe that all men should be treated equally under the law.

[xcamel]

Great platitudes - you should be so proud - but all based on a false argument.

[xcamel]

Also, by your own description - the FT is a regressive tax.

[Wonder Warthog]

First, you're NOT "repeating what I said". What I said was that "I" was willing to "take the hit". I suspect there are others that would be willing to take the short term negative for the long term positive.

Second, I told you to not bother me again, yet you persist in doing so. Keep it up and I'll get the Mods on you.

So, I tell you again---BUZZ OFF, JERK!. Go grind your anti-Fairtax ax on someone else.

[ovrtaxt]

I guess you guys need a thread of your own to deposit all your misinformation once in a while. Hope you’re getting your fix, you’ll need it.

[xcamel]

Nearly 8 years later and the FTN’s still haven’t learned anything...

[Your Nightmare]

You are comparing the FairTax - a bill that has never even made it out of committee in well over 10 years - to the New York Yankees - a team that has 26 World Championships?

Grape or Cherry?

[Turbopilot]

1) have a very small govt with no entitlements

Amen. But irrelevant. We're talking taxes, not spending.

2) eliminate taxes. Completely. If the govt wants money it will have to earn it just like any other company by asking for ‘donations’ and delivering a real return for the money.

I would love it, but we have a historical example in the Articles of Confederation showing that voluntary taxation by the feds doesn't work. I'm inclined to think we'd see the same result today.

But in the meantime, a flat tax. No it will not eliminate the IRS.

Then it's out. Ignoring the fact that our current system today was created as a flat tax just two decades ago, there is already a proposal on the table that does eliminate the IRS. If you want to propose an alternative, it needs to be at least as good as the proposal already out there. Even an idealized flat tax is not, and we know from experience exactly where a flat tax ends up after a few years.

I'm more than willing to listen to a candidate (or just a regular Joe) who proposes an alternative to the FairTax that eliminates the IRS and income-based taxes. I have yet to hear one, so until I do I will continue to not vote for, donate to, or support any candidates who don't come out in favor of the FairTax. Period.

[xcamel]

same politicians who earmak “bridges to nowhere”, and support the 9th circus court; and constitutional rights for enemy combatants... yeah, real bright bunch there, eh?

[xcamel]

"Ignoring the fact that our current system today was created as a flat tax just two decades ago"

1913 was alot longer ago than that.

[Toddsterpatriot]

A whiny FairTaxer, who knew?

[Toddsterpatriot]

According to FairTax lore, these people pay 22-23% embedded taxes on every purchase they make at retail right now. It is hidden in the cost of the good or service, but if the shadow people didn't make the purchase the thing wouldn't be made and the tax wouldn't get paid to the FedGov.

Excellent point!