Posted on 08/27/2007 7:53:49 AM PDT by Turret Gunner A20
This is what The Wall Street Journal had to say about the FairTax.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010523
And boy did they get it very, very wrong.
Evidently the FairTax is making some people nervous. The attacks are increasing, and there's a striking similarity in the fabrications being offered by columnists and pundits from coast to coast.
The heaviest, and possibly the strangest, attack over the weekend came from Wall Street Journal columnist Bruce Bartlett. Bartlett's column was titled "Fair Tax, Flawed Tax," and by Sunday morning it had generated hundreds of emails. When I finally read Bartlett's column I was completely stunned. I've referred to his commentary dozens of times in the last few years on the show, so for him to be so far off – so bizarrely wrong – about the FairTax was stunning.
OK ... by now you've probably read the column, so let's deal first with what I feel to be Bartlett's libelous assertion that the FairTax was " ...originally devised by the Church of Scientology in the early 1990s as a way to get rid of the Internal Revenue Service,"
Where in the hell did that come from?
This assertion – that the FairTax was developed by the Church of Scientology – is flat-out false. I suspect that Bartlett allowed someone else to do his research for him on this issue; someone with an agenda. Perhaps he blindly accepted some information from a Washington insider, perhaps a K Street denizen who fears the loss of power and income should the FairTax become law.
What Bartlett did was very simple, and astonishingly careless. He mistook a group called Citizens for an Alternative Tax System (CATS) for the people who developed the FairTax.
Now CATS did have a plan for a national retail sales tax, but it was in no way connected with Americans for Fair Taxation (AFFT) and the FairTax.
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer
I was familiar with the CATS program. I had them on my radio repeatedly. As I've told you, I've been interested in this idea of replacing the income tax with the sales tax for some time.
The CATS idea was simply to do away with income taxes and replace them with a 17% sales tax. Payroll taxes would stay with you, as would many other federal tax levies. As you can see, this is substantially different from the program offered by the FairTax.
I'm going to lead you to several articles here. The first link will take you a document detailing the history of CATS.
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer
If you read this carefully you will see absolutely no reference to the FairTax. There is no reference to Congressman John Linder or H.R. 25, the FairTax Act. All of the references are to CATS and their own idea of a national retail sales tax.
Moving right along here, next you have a list of articles detailing the connection between CATS and Scientology.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Citizens+for+an+Alternative+Tax+System%22%2BScientology&btnG=Google+Search
That's right. It was CATS, not Americans for Fair Taxation with the strong connection to Scientology. In fact, here's another link setting for Scientology front groups.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Citizens+for+an+Alternative+Tax+System%22%2BScientology&btnG=Google+Search
Scroll down the list a bit and you'll see CATS! You will not see AFFT or the FairTax mentioned.
The people responsible for creating AFFT and the Fair Tax are Houston Businessmen Leo Linbek and Robert McNair. Neither one of these people are Scientologists.
These men and their associates raised over $20 million for a study on finding an alternative to the federal income tax. That research was conducted by a coalition of market and academic experts from places such as MIT and Harvard, none of whom were associated in any way with Scientology. From that research came the FairTax.
Just an interesting historical note: When the research for a new tax system was commissioned with the $20 million raised by Linbeck, McNair and their associates, they made a commitment to accept whatever findings the research developed, strongly suspecting that their efforts were going to lead to the endorsement of some sort of a flat tax. The market and academic researchers came forth with an idea for a national retail sales tax instead, and the FairTax was born.
Bruce Bartlett owes Leo Linbeck, Robert McNair and the hundreds of thousands of FairTax volunteers across an America an apology. I suspect that apology will be forthcoming before too many days pass.
There were many other inaccuracies in Bartlett's column. As you know Congressman Linder and I, with the help of a brilliant analyst named Rob Woodall, are busy writing another FairTax book that will address virtually every meaningful criticism you may have heard or read. In Reader's Digest form, here are some quick response to other charges by Bartlett:
Bartlett jumps right into the middle of this nonsense over what the real tax rate is; 23 percent or 30 percent. He correctly points out that we don't quote the FairTax rate the way conventional sales taxes are quoted. The reason is simple; the FairTax will replace the embedded taxes and already exist in every item or service we purchase; and secondly, the FairTax will replace the income tax. Both the embedded taxes in the prices of what we buy now and the income taxes we pay now are inclusive taxes. We're replacing inclusive taxes with inclusive taxes.
It's so very simple: When you see a lamp on the shelf marked $100, you will pay $100 for that lamp when you get to the checkout. You will receive a receipt which shows that $23 of the $100 you have paid represents the FairTax. You do the math for yourself, but every time I work it out it comes to 23%
Bartlett also joins other critics in another blatant falsehood about the FairTax. Here's a sentence from his column: "If a product costs $1 at retail, the FairTax adds 30%, for a total of $1.30. Since the 30-cent tax is 23% of $1.30, FairTax supporters say the rate is 23% rather than 30%." In another paragraph Bartlett also says "Imagine paying 30 percent to the federal government on top of the purchase price of your next house."
Wrong, wrong, wrong. If a product costs $1 at retail .... It costs $1, with the FairTax already included. This is so easy to understand, you almost get the idea that people are intentionally trying to confuse the facts here. That $1 item Bartlett is referring to costs $1 at retail today! But instead of including the FairTax in that price, all of the embedded taxes from every business and individual involved in bringing that item to the marketplace are included. You remove one, you add the other. And that bit about 30 percent to the federal government on top of the purchase price of your new home?
Another lie. The embedded taxes are so high on the price of a new home today that when they are removed and the FairTax added, that home could be a percent or two cheaper! Come on, Bruce. This really isn't that hard. Let's try to spell this out plainly for everyone:
In another astonishing falsehood Bartlett says that the cost of providing the prebate to every household in America is not factored into the FairTax rate. He says it would cost at least $600 billion the first year. Again, Bartlett is just flat wrong. The cost of the rebate most certainly was included in the 23 percent rate. Congressman Linder tells me that if the rebate had not been included the FairTax rate could have been lowered to 18 percent.
The fact is that the rebate is projected to cost 5 percent, and that 5 percent is most certainly included in the rate.
Bartlett makes another huge mistake(?) regarding the prebate. He says that the FairTax sends monthly checks to every household based on income. Then he speaks of the "complexity and intrusiveness of tracking every American's monthly income .." Wrong ... completely and absolutely wrong. As anyone who has read the book knows, the prebate is not based on income, it's based on family size. There is no need to track anyone's monthly income. The only thing the government needs is a valid Social Security number and the number of people in the household.
Then, of course, Bartlett gets into the question of whether or not you can fund the federal government at present levels with a 23 percent inclusive sales tax rate. He cites numerous sources that say the tax rate would have to be much higher than 23 percent.
Know this ... in every case where some individual or organization has come forward to say that the tax rate would have to be higher than 23 percent, they have first changed the terms of the FairTax. That is, they have created exemptions. For instance, they assume that congress would never agree to tax food and medicines, therefore the tax would have to be XX percent, or that congress wouldn't tax transportation and housing, therefore the tax would have to be XX percent. Again .. the fact that the taxes are already there in the form of embedded taxes – embedded taxes to be replaced by the fair tax – is ignored.
Instead of me arguing about the sufficiency of the 23 percent rate, perhaps you would like to read it for yourself. Here's a link to a study by several economists titled "Taxing Sales under the FairTax: What Rate Works?"
http://people.bu.edu/kotlikof/Taxing%20Sales%20under%20the%20FairTax,%20What%20Rate%20Works,%20October%206,%202006.pdf
Don't take my word for it. I'm just a second-tier talk show host. See what several renowned economists have to say in a 34-page report.
Let's face it. The FairTax is a ripe target. It is easy to demagogue.
"Candidate Smith wants to add 30 percent to the price of everything you buy."
"Candidate Jones wants to add 23 percent to the price of your new home"
Can you imagine some uninformed voter (remember, most voters are government educated) hearing something like that? You just know how they're going to vote, don't you?
Is it possible that some of these irresponsible attacks are being mounted right now to prevent a new candidate, Fred Thompson, for instance, from running on this issue? Is a shot being fired across some political bows?
http://boortz.com/nuze/200708/08272007.html - fairtax
And that's precisely the reason not to set up a NEW federal tax.
No, my answer is "I don't know but it's less than the Fair Tax number."
So again your answer is, "I don't know, but I knows its not what they say it is."
It’s somewhat utopian, methinks. Let’s see a state do it and succeed first. Is that unreasonable?
It does not raise wages or profits. It raises the amount the amount that is taken home by the workers and owners. A person paid $60,000 before the fairtax, will still have a $60K wage after the fairtax. The difference is, the wage earner takes home the whole $60K under the fairtax and maybe only $45K under the current system. Sounds good, but you need to realize that extra money going to the worker can not also be used reduce the cost of the goods. Therefore, costs of goods stays about the same, and a 30% tax is then added resulting in massive inflation.
And also, with 50% of the wage earning population not paying a dime in federal income taxes currently, and a sizable portion of them getting a check, with the NRST they would no longer be such a drain and freeloading. They would at least start to contribute to the cost of running the government.
No, you'll pay like the rest of us. You can complain about unconstitutional laws til yer blue in the face, but you'll have to tolerate them like the rest of us. Sorry.
The IRS needs to go, and people need to be able to pay their taxes without onerous paperwork.
I'm self employed. I pay an accountant. I know what yer talking about. But I'm still not interested in creating a NEW way for the feds to tax us.
Ya! Lets see a state go without an income tax and see how they do.
What? Some already do?
He doesn’tknow. He has not done the research, he does not have the data, he’s just blowing smoke.
The people who have the data (linked to OTA and JTC) are performing the research and analysis. Their results are beginning to leak out. It takes a long time for peer reviewed journals to comb over the details of a manuscript. But so far the results look very positive for the FairTax.
No, let’s see a state implement the Fair Tax.
Every time Congress "simplifies" the tax code they usually make it more complicated and tailor it to special interest groups even more.
Any real gains in simplification are undone as Congress tweaks it to give "much needed tax relief to..." whoever.
The IRS is a bloated governmental organization who's main purpose is to employ civil servants while producing nothing.
The purpose of payroll taxes is to prevent people from realizing how they are being taxed multiple times.
Payroll taxes need to be done away with.
The IRS needs to shrink to the size needed to audit retailers to make sure they are collecting the taxes, and to send out rebates based on household size. Not the size required to make sure every business and individual is complying with insanely complex business and personal income taxes as well as all the sin taxes, gas taxes, and other federal taxes.
We also don't need the government using "tax exemptions" as an excuse to interfere with the operations of Churches and inhibiting the free speech and freedom of association of religious organizations.
I don’t know the answer. Is there any state currently that utilizes a sales tax to generate the majority of its revenue?
There are no income taxes in Washington State and I love it.
In fact, in this very liberal leftist state everyone loves the fact they don’t have to expose everything about their personal lives and behaviour to the State via an income tax return. No paperwork to store in boxes, no grinding through complicated insane code regulations no loss of privacy, no dreading an audit, no April 15th for the State.
Anyone that even mentions an income tax in this state gets shown the exit, and that comes from all political corners.
So how does Washington state get its revenue? What’s the breakdown?
Don’t know either.
Market competition in gasoline?
Market competition in electronics?
What world are you in?
In this thread, everyone who disagrees with me is a big dummy.
LOL
Read it again -- that is assuming you read it once -- it doesn't say wht you are alleging.
We can try this when ya’ll can muster enough support to pass a new constitutional amendment to get rid of the income tax. Otherwise, we’ll just end up with an income tax AND a “fair” tax, eventually. :p
I am nearing seventy and, like you, will pay more under the NRST and, like you, I also support it because it is good for the country.
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.