Posted on 11/22/2007 6:45:51 PM PST by Ouderkirk
It’s like you’re oblivous to what you’re arguing for, and against.
You’re arguing for a “spend-it-all-before-the-taxman-or-our-grandkids-get-it” consumerism, versus a culture of thrift and care for those who will come after us.
This attitude is one of things that is destroying our country.
Before the Grandkids get what? Many Seniors are spending every dime just to scrape by. There is nothing there to give anyone!
This plan treats Billionaires and the very poor elderly as having the same choices. That is a farce you will never sell.
Ah. You're for the kind of "fairness" that has "the rich" pay "their fair share." Got it. Explains a lot.
And many Seniors are adding Social Security checks to their already fat bank accounts every month while their grandkids scrape to buy groceries and keep the utilities on.
it only took me a minute to find a clear description of how the title is to be interpreted or constructed, including:
sec. 1(b)(3) To prevent double, multiple, or cascading taxation.
I think I've had enough of this debate, as your arguments do not tend to support your points. Thank you for encouraging me to read up on the matter. I have learned new things about the FairTax proposal which more deeply confirm it's essential benefit to the citizens of this country, namely the preservation of the republic and freedom.
Good insight, no-s.
LurkeyLiarLooneyLou and his negative nabob tribe have been trashing the FairTax for years using some of the most perplexing arguments imaginable.
After a while most reasonable folks catch on, as have you.
Welcome to the FairTax
There are many benefits in HR. 25 to the retired sect. ZERO taxes up to the poverty line then NO income taxes on any retirement income or earnings. If there are seniors who will be hurt by it they are the ones with large after tax retirement accounts whose interest and dividend earnings will now be tax free. Hell, make some adjustment for them with the free lunch that will be handed to those with IRA’s.
After skimming the article (and going blind in the process) I can see several items that are just plain wrong, as well as others that would please the socialist. It’s hard to believe such nonsense was published in Town Hall and it’s even harder to believe there are supposedly freedom loving Freepers defending it.
Just a few observations about your poorly-prepared piece:
[Quoted Rate] The effect of FairTax, as against current income tax rates, ought to be quoted inclusively as 23%; otherwise, you must inflate income tax rates accordingly: 28% becomes 38% and 35% really is 54%.
[Investments] Fees charged, on investments, would include the FairTax.
[State Agencies] Most states have a sales tax, so this should be no big deal. Some minor adjustments would be required, but those states having an income tax should realize positive scales of economy for reduced points of collection.
[Prebates] Thus, lawful residents would NEVER pay the ENTIRE 23%. Kotlikoff found, as follows:
The effective tax rate percentages, that different income groups would pay under a FairTax consumption tax, are calculated by crediting the monthly “prebate” (rebate of tax on necessities) against all likely monthly spending of citizen families (1 member, and greater based on figures established by the Dept. of HHS - a single person receiving ~$200/mo. A family of four receiving ~$500, in addition to family earners receiving their WHOLE paycheck). Prof.’s Kotlikoff and Rapson (10/06) have concluded,
(From study: http://snipurl.com/kotcomparetaxrates ) “...the FairTax imposes much lower average taxes on working-age households than does the current system. The FairTax broadens the tax base from what is now primarily a system of labor income taxation to a system that taxes, albeit indirectly, both labor income and existing wealth. By including existing wealth in the effective tax base, much of which is owned by rich and middle-class elderly households, the FairTax is able to tax labor income at a lower effective rate and, thereby, lower the average lifetime tax rates facing working-age Americans.
“Consider, as an example, a single household age 30 earning $50,000. The household’s average tax rate under the current system is 21.1 percent. It’s 13.5 percent under the FairTax. Since the FairTax would preserve the purchasing power of Social Security benefits and also provide a tax rebate, older low-income workers who will live primarily or exclusively on Social Security would be better off. As an example, the average remaining lifetime tax rate for an age 60 married couple with $20,000 of earnings falls from its current value of 7.2 percent to -11.0 percent under the FairTax. As another example, compare the current 24.0 percent remaining lifetime average tax rate of a married age 45 couple with $100,000 in earnings to the 14.7 percent rate that arises under the FairTax.”
Further,
(From study: http://snipurl.com/kotftmacromicro ) “...once one moves to generations postdating the baby boomers there are positive welfare gains for all income groups in each cohort. Under a 23 percent FairTax policy, the poorest members of the generation born in 1990 enjoy a 13.5 percent welfare gain. Their middle-class and rich contemporaries experience 5 and 2 percent welfare gains, respectively. The welfare gains are largest for future generations. Take the cohort born in 2030. The poorest members of this cohort enjoy a huge 26 percent improvement in their well-being. For middle class members of this birth group, there’s a 12 percent welfare gain. And for the richest members of the group, the gain is 5 percent.”
[Evenhandedness] Given the following considerations, I fail to see how you can logically conclude that the current IRC is a “more evenhanded approach to collecting necessary Federal revenues,”
* The IRC has grown so large, no one can fully understand its provisions.
* The IR Code creates a “gaming opportunity” for business and other special interests seeking favorable treatment. When these “tax favors” are doled out by politicians, the cost of these “evenhandedness distortions,” are borne by those who are adversely affected by the favored status (e.g. tax credits on certain types of hybrid auto’s are at the expense of all of the other auto dealers, employees, companies, shareholders, taxpayers).
You then state that the IR Code is not the “long term” answer, but that - without further comparison - HR 25 “is not the right long term answer.” (Of course, this is a sheer non-sensical conclusion that does not follow from the faulty previous statement.)
UNDER “Impacts on Taxpayers,” under HR25...
[Eliminates tax rate differentials] This has been shown above to be incorrect (see [Prebates] above). And, the combined “possible 43%” (Fed. St. and Local) that you say the tax rate could “easily exceed,” - well, whereever this condition exists, it EXISTS NOW inasmuch as FairTax is revenue neutral. It’s just that FairTax will make the true tax cost VISIBLE (horror of horrors).
[Reduced Purchasing Power] First off, embedded unseen business taxes in prices have been found by Jorgensen (Harvard) to average 22%. Households will have more disposable income because they’ll have their whole paycheck + the prebate. Various studies have pegged the GDP increase from 7% - 13% just in the first year.
[Investor Homebuyer Advantage] As the investor “sells” the space monthly, tax would be included in rental price and paid monthly.
[Soc. Security Recipients] They’re paying embedded taxes currently, plus income tax on receipts. That ends, and a prebate is added. (See also [Prebates] above.)
[Elim. of safety net] Your IRC “safety net” comes at too expensive a price. By letting earners keep the fruit of their labor, and supplementing it with a prebate, these “inducement gimmicks” - deductions, credits, blah, blah, are no longer needed. Charitable giving goes up with more disposable income. You can afford child care now that Uncle Gubmint isn’t graphing a chunk of your paycheck.
[Rich profit?] FairTax captures past wealth, as well as current earnings. So, no matter if Uncle Moneybags spends it, or his kids spend it, it eventually gets taxed. (See [Prebates] above.) The “rich” are quite comfortable with the current system. The FairTax eliminates all but poverty-level protection. You start making exceptions, and the rate goes skyward. The prebate ensures poverty protection most equitably and it eliminates “setting up tax industries” to game exceptions (which ultimately double tax the consumer with a higher rate, and consulting fees, e.g., like the current system does in so many ways).
Talk about a FEUDAL SYSTEM! The Lords are the Politicians who make regular proclamations according to influence by lobbyists, their “Entreators to the Lord’s Court.” The milking of we Peasants ENDS under FairTax.
[Compliance Costs] Any way you cut it, your conclusion is just plain wrong. What’s the first income tax prepared? The state’s? Plainly not. That’s because the states reference the Federal return. Compliance costs DROP PRECIPITOUSLY under FairTax - no more individual income tax returns for wage earning families. Points of collection DROP 90%, as I’ve seen referenced elsewhere.
What’s more, Sales and Use Taxes are vastly less complex to complete.
UNDER “Administrative Decisions & Impacts”...
[State Conversions & Costs] You said, “it is possible that not a single state would decide to become a sales tax authority” and “it may also be far more expensive than admin. of the current IR Code.” Boy, now those sound like really reasonable conclusions, don’t they (tongue firmly in cheek).
[Registration for Prebates] The current SS system is hardly done without fraud. So, by what measure are you speculatively evaluating the logistics of simply translating this over to FairTax prebates?? We’re already providing monthly checks to seniors. YOUR STANDARDS of expected performance are the only elements that have “at least a touch of unreality.
UNDER “Economic Certainty...”
[Neutral Rate] Let’ see what FairTax.org had to say about that:
“The Treasury estimates for a national retail sales tax reported by the panel were not an estimate of the FairTax legislation. The panel concocted a base of their own, one apparently designed to produce the highest possible rate. Rather than follow the FairTax legislation, they apparently used a typical state sales tax base that is far, far narrower (many exemptions) than the single-rate/no exemptions FairTax.”
FairTax.org continues...
“In addition, the Treasury refused to compare rate quotes on an apples-to-apples basis. Rather than quote the rates for replacement systems in a direct comparison to the income/payroll tax rates they replace, they used ‘econospeak’ sleight of hand to compare apples to oranges. Since the ill-fated beginning of the income tax, it has been quoted by government (and taxpayers) in what economists call a ‘tax-inclusive’ manner. ‘My tax rate was 23 percent’ means if you earned $100, the government kept $23. If you talk about that rate as if it were a sales tax, which is added on to a purchase (tax exclusive), the income tax rate is 30 percent. No matter what, the government gets $23.
“... the Treasury **refuses to make public** [emphasis mine] its scoring methodology – estimating the tax base and revenues – for these plans. Providing such methodology is standard operating procedure in the academic world, yet the Treasury has ignored requests for this information from both FairTax.org and academia.
“...The Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University and Laurence Kotlikoff, Professor of Economics at Boston University, have teamed up to provide a sound methodology for estimating the FairTax base and computing the FairTax rate.4 Their paper demonstrates that the 23 percent rate specified by the Fair Tax Act (HR 25) is eminently feasible and suggests what led Gale5 and the President’s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform6 to reach the opposite – and incorrect – conclusion. (Paper available at http://snipurl.com/taxnotes_galerebut - see also: http://snipurl.com/taxpanelrebutted )”
CONCLUSION
I could go on and on about your presumptuous diatribe biased against the real tax reform that the FairTax represents.
Let’s align the tax collection function to work with the economy, not against it. America’s working families are paid because the companies they work for sell goods and services. Let’s pay for government the way America’s families are paid - when, and because, something is sold. Let us work, together, to end the enslavement of the Tax Code and to restore Liberty to America’s working families: http://snipr.com/scrapthecode
Well said!
Taxman Bravo Zulu!
Well said.
As Neal Boortz said earlier today his response would be that You could shove the brain of Hank Adler up the butt of an ant it would rattle around like a bee bee in a matchbox.
As long as we have the IRS still in existance we are not prisoners to the tax code.
I wish I had heard that comment!
Thank you.
It is easy for someone who makes their living defending the IRC to throw rocks at any proposal which threatens to make them into honest citizens.
It is far more difficult for that same person to propose a better alternative.
I think most of us who support the FairTax are open to suggestions as to better ways to tax (an oxymoron?).
HST, have you noticed that the negative nabobs are without any concrete proposals?
That is priceless. Only Neal could deliver that line!!
Yes, I have noticed that. It also appears they are very, very fearful of change and they have no appreciation for genuine liberty. They are content to allow the government to reach into their paychecks to confiscate that portion they deem legal. They are likewise content to divulge the intimate details of their personal and financial lives to the government.
Can you imagine what the founders would have said or done if the government demanded to know whether they were married, had children, gave to charity, owned a home or bought/sold securities or other property? How much money they made in a year? I have no doubt there would have been blood shed at the mere prospect. The founders knew what they were doing when they prohibited the federal government from taxating the citizens directly.
Our forefathers lost their collective minds in 1913. The 16th and 17th Amendments transferred an enormous amount of power to the Federal government. But the people have grown so accustomed to the invasions and confiscatory taxation, they don't even question the system or dare to dream of true liberty. We are the servants and the IRS is our master. But the majority of the sheople are too stupid to realize it.
Nope, your paycheck will be about the same. Explained many times.
Yup! I tried to explain that in the past, but nobody listened. This FairTax will never be implemented because the majority of our population would take it in the butt. Voters, remember.
The Fair Tax is calculated to be revenue neutral, meaning it will take no more from the economy than the current monstrosity. It will be fully visible to the members of the electorate rather than hidden from their view. Query: If the FairTax will take no more from the economy than the current system, how can you legitimately assert that the majority of the population will "take it in the butt"? What is the basis for your assertion?
Not so. Paychecks will increase by the amount of taxes currently being withheld.
Nabobs of negativism are wrong, despite their puny attempts to deny it.
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.