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
if nothing else, it avoids setting up a NEW fed tax, which is what nat'l sales tax does.
If it will increase your profit. Lets say that both you and the guy across the street sell a product for $100 that costs both of you $70 wholesale, and that you each sell 100 of them a month. So you're making $3,000 profit on $10,000 sales. Now if you believed that by dropping your price to $95, you could get 75% of the 200 units sold each month, that would amount to $3,750 profit on $14,250 sales.
You might even do a little better, because lowering the price brings in 10 more customers who will buy at $95 but not at $100, and you might be able to make a deal with your wholesaler to get the items for $67.50 because of the increase in your volume. This would net you $4,400 profit on $15,200 sales.
The only thing the guy across the street can do is lower his price to $95 too, or he might even go you one better and cut his price to $92.50. This can go on until the margin is barely enough to cover your overhead or all but one of you decides he's unwilling to sell for less than X profit.
NUFF SAID!!
WalMart isn’t exactly hurting.
Without that, I will not support it.
Please enumerte the lies.
Meaning you don't believe embedded taxes exist?
I have never seen compelling documentation to justify anything approaching a 30% drop in the cost of goods at the retail level.
Or are you agruing about the amount of embedded taxes?
And the number is 23%, not 30%.
K-Mart however is, and deserves to be. It is without question the worst retail store in America. I have never seen such a dirty, disorganized, falling apart store staffed by the most incompetent people on the planet.
Wal-Mart greeters are rocket scientists compared to the people K-Mart employs.
I'm not so convinced that the high end mall-type department stores are doing so great, but even if they are, it doesn't prove anything about pricing in the pure sense, because those stores didn't just pocket the money made from the higher prices, they spent it on more expensive fixtures, better staff, higher rent locations, etc., IOW things that affect the customers' experience, so in effect it becomes part of the product they're 'selling', making a comparison to K-Mart not an apples-to-apples one.
I haven't seen you doing anything but posting a bunch of unfounded sniping. Nor have I seen any citations of authority to back up your rants. Are you hiding something that the MIT< Harvard, and other analysts would like to know? How about letting us "ignorant people" in on your vast store of hidden knowledge? We can hardly wait.
gotta love it, eh??
why? you’re doing just fine with your buddies posting them all...
Rule 1:
Never argue with an idiot.
“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.”
Therein lies the crux of the problem with the Fair Tax. Does anyone really think that Washington pols and K Street are going leave an implemented fair tax unadulterated by exemptions? Even if the Fair Tax was passed without exemptions, it wouldn’t be long before exemptions were added. Then we are back on the same old merry go round.
Like I said before, I'm holding my breath.
Not necessarily. There's no way to radically alter the tax code overnight. Just ain't gonna happen. You can make it flatter, and simpler. That would be a good thing. Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good (and it's only perfect in your head, anyway.)
You already are double taxed. In fact, your a minimum of triple taxed on the same money today. First your income, fica, etc... taxes. Then taxes on the earnings from savings, and the embedded taxes you pay when you spend the money.
So again I ask, what is different and worse with the FairTax on this issue?
The way we currently figure taxes is by adding the exclusive rate onto the retail cost of the item. So, if I buy a $100 something in California the 8.25% exclusive tax rate yields an at-the-register price of $108.25.
Doing an apples-to-apples comparison with the Fair Tax rate yields a 30% tax, not the 23% inclusive rate its proponents prefer to spout, for obvious reasons.
Yes. For exclusive taxation. Since the FairTax will replace the INCLUSIVE income tax, an apples to apples comparrison is to speak in terms of an INCLUSIVE rate.
You want some back up? Sure, here it is, printed in Money magazine and quoting the FairTax expert who did the study, Harvard economist Dr. Dale Jorgenson. This is a point I made for 7 years before the fairtaxers were forced to admit it. Excerpt below:
------------
We'll explain this bit about "embedded taxes" in a moment. But first, let's consider what Boortz and Linder appear to be saying. Prices at the store are the same. Your boss stops taking all that money out of your paycheck. Uncle Sam is sending you money instead. And, oh yeah, the government is still up and running.
This just can't happen. "It is practically and logically impossible for the government be collecting the same amount of money as before and have everyone suddenly be better off," says Daniel Shaviro, a tax law professor at New York University.
Part of the problem is the way Boortz and Linder are using the idea of embedded taxes. In an eight-year-old study paid for by AFFT, Harvard economist Dale Jorgenson noted that because the taxes paid by everyone in the chain of production are embedded in the cost of goods, prices could decline an average of 20 percent if all those taxes were scrapped. The FairTax Book devotes an entire chapter to this idea.
What The FairTax Book fails to mention is that prices can only fall this sharply if companies cut wages. I asked Jorgenson about this, and he agreed. Say your salary is $100,000 a year today, but you take home $80,000 after taxes.
Your company is still paying that extra $20,000. In a FairTax world, it will save that money, and be able to lower its prices accordingly, only if it can reduce your salary to $80,000. In other words, your take-home pay is the same as before. Sure, you'd get to "keep 100 percent of your paycheck," as Boortz and Linder repeatedly write, but it would be a smaller paycheck. That's kind of a big thing to leave out.
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.