Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Time Magazine: The Fair Tax has its moment in the sun
Americans For Fair Taxation ^ | January 4, 2008

Posted on 01/08/2008 1:09:10 PM PST by Man50D

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041 next last

1 posted on 01/08/2008 1:09:12 PM PST by Man50D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer; Taxman; pigdog; Principled; EternalVigilance; phil_will1; kevkrom; n-tres-ted; ...

Fair Tax ping!


2 posted on 01/08/2008 1:09:37 PM PST by Man50D (Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it! Duncan Hunter is a Cosponsor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

I’d rather a flat tax than the fair tax. In fact, I would like to see the Republicans put forward a constitutional amendment that would limit the amount of tax the federal government can collect from an individual.


3 posted on 01/08/2008 1:14:54 PM PST by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

That’s why it would be a consumption tax. You give the government taxes through products and services you purchase. As far as I know at this moment, it’s the best way to control how much money the government gets.


4 posted on 01/08/2008 1:18:02 PM PST by wastedyears (This is my BOOMSTICK)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

Limits?? on the government??? what are you some kind of conservative or something???


5 posted on 01/08/2008 1:20:04 PM PST by griswold3 (Al queda is guilty of hirabah (war against society) Penalty is death.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: wastedyears

It’s more or less an American VAT. Honestly, I’d take anything over the current income tax system. I can only bend over for so many years before I lose the smile.


6 posted on 01/08/2008 1:21:00 PM PST by SomeReasonableDude (Back it up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: wastedyears

What’s to keep them from just upping the rate like the states do?


7 posted on 01/08/2008 1:22:05 PM PST by ontap (Just another backstabbing conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol
I’d rather a flat tax than the fair tax.

The Fair Tax is a flat tax but on consumption instead of income. A flat tax on income has already been tried and has turned into an abysmal failure. It's called the income tax. When the income tax was enacted in 1913 it taxed people 1% of their first $20,000 and 7% above $500,000. Most people were taxed 1% since so few earned above $500,000. At the time less than 5% of the population was taxed. Today that figure has ballooned to more than 80% of the population being taxed. Another flat tax on income will eventually morph back into the same monstrosity we have today only faster thanks to lobbyists.
8 posted on 01/08/2008 1:32:01 PM PST by Man50D (Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it! Duncan Hunter is a Cosponsor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SomeReasonableDude
It’s more or less an American VAT.

Actually it is not a VAT. VATS impose taxes at each stage of production. Hidden corporate taxes are passed on as costs to the consumer in the form of higher prices. The Fair Tax will eliminate hidden taxes by abolishing corporate taxes and will tax only the final stage of production
9 posted on 01/08/2008 1:35:58 PM PST by Man50D (Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it! Duncan Hunter is a Cosponsor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Your Nightmare; Always Right; lewislynn; lucysmom; robertpaulsen; Filo; longtermmemmory; ...
several propagandist versions posted today due to the scathing WSJ editorial..

(see here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1950158/posts)

Have Phun..

10 posted on 01/08/2008 1:36:00 PM PST by xcamel (FDT/2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ontap

“What’s to keep them from just upping the rate like the states do?”

The founders got it right!

“It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, ‘in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four.’ If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.”
Alexander Hamilton in Federalist #21

It is very likely that every man, woman and child would know what the tax rate was before the FairTax was ever implemented. After all, there would be at least a 6 month delay between its enactment in congress and its implementation date. Can you imagine the pressure on congress to reduce the rate if everyone were paying the same rate on everything?


11 posted on 01/08/2008 1:37:46 PM PST by phil_will1 (My posts are in no way limited or restricted by previously expressed SQL opinions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ontap

From Federalist No. 21:

“...It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, ``in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four.’’

If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.

Impositions of this kind usually fall under the denomination of indirect taxes, and must for a long time constitute the chief part of the revenue raised in this country....”


12 posted on 01/08/2008 1:39:21 PM PST by DivaDelMar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Man50D
A flat tax on income has already been tried and has turned into an abysmal failure.

So very true. It's funny but I never considered the original income tax as a flat tax but it really was. And it most definitely has morphed into an abysmal failure.
13 posted on 01/08/2008 1:39:47 PM PST by weef
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: phil_will1

There’s that GMTA thing again. :)


14 posted on 01/08/2008 1:40:13 PM PST by DivaDelMar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Man50D
Regardless if taxes are fair or flat, our tax dollars should not be used for constitutionally unauthorized federal spending programs. I wish that people would press the following issue with every presidential candidate where constitutionally unauthorized federal spending is concerned.

Back in the 1930s, FDR needed to uphold his oath to defend the Constitution with respect to establishing his New Deal federal spending programs. More specifically, he needed to rally the states to amend the Constitution to essentially add his federal spending programs, SS for example, to Sec. 8 of Article I in compliance with the 10th Amendment.

Instead, he essentially made a fool out of himself with respect to trying to get his way by expressing his plan to stack the Supreme Court. It's almost as if FDR didn't understand the Founder's requirement for constitutionally enumerated federal powers, particularly those powers associated with federal spending.

Part of the damage that FDR did to the country is as follows. He essentially got the Supreme Court to not only agree to his wide, politically correct interpretation of the general welfare clause, but to also ignore 10th A. protected state powers.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare (emphasis added) of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

With the 10th A. essentially politically repealed, FDR and Congress were able to bypass the Article V power of the people to amend the Constitution to formally delegate powers to the federal government. In other words, thanks to FDR's folly, the federal government can now write its own powers by simply inventing new ways to spend taxpayer's money in the name of the vaguely worded general welfare clause.

Fortunately, Thomas Jefferson comes to our rescue with respect to the Founder's intentions for constitutionally limited federal spending. Jefferson noted that regardless that the federal government has the power to lay taxes, the good intentions of the president or federal lawmakers are no substitute for constitutionally enumerated federal powers which reasonably direct how our taxes should be spent.

"1. To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, "to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare." For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless.

It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please."

--Thomas Jefferson concerning the constitutionality of establishing a national bank, 1791 http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/amerdoc/bank-tj.htm

The bottom line is that the people need to wise up to major corruption in the federal government where constitutionally unauthorized federal spending is concerned, a consequence of FDR era politics. The people need to quit sitting on their hands and petition lawmakers, judges and justices who are not upholding their oaths to defend the Constitution, demanding that they resign from their jobs.
15 posted on 01/08/2008 1:41:48 PM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol
I’d rather a flat tax than the fair tax.

Been there. Done that. Got a T-shirt?

Reagan did well to get it close to a Flat Tax. It had on a dress and some cosmetic jewelry, but it was a flat tax at its core. It too was molested, cajoled, twisted, fed and corn-holed to what we have today.

The flat tax is much simpler to explain and understand, in theory, but it is still subject to pre-paid tax contributions that can always be altered through legislative schemes.

16 posted on 01/08/2008 1:43:25 PM PST by Tenacious 1 (Racism? There are more than a million people in the world that want me dead because I am American!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ontap
What’s to keep them from just upping the rate like the states do?

The Fair Tax will be transparent since the hidden taxes will be eliminated and the Fair Tax rate will be a separate item on the receipt. If Congress were to attempt a tax hike people could see the raise and respond immediately. More importantly if the rate is raised too high then people will respond by reducing their purchases. Doing so would lessen the amount of taxes collected. It will force Congress to keep The Fair Tax within reasonable boundaries. Founding father and first Secretary Of The Treasury Alexander Hamilton stated this concept in his Federalist Paper #21. To quote:

It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit, which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed-that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the sayin is as just as it is witty that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four." If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.
17 posted on 01/08/2008 1:44:01 PM PST by Man50D (Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it! Duncan Hunter is a Cosponsor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ontap
What’s to keep them from just upping the rate like the states do?

Today, Congress and lobbyists divide up the tax code to reward or punish small segments of the population. It's popular to tax the rich and most who are not rich will not object to that. Farmers or Oil companies want a break on certain activities? Just slide it into the tax code and you have corporate welfare without it showing up as an expense of Government.

Under the FairTax, everyone is treated equally. If Congress wants to raise the rate, it will be raised equally on everyone. Also, although the poor will pay little or no net tax, everyone pays the same marginal tax rate. This gives all taxpayers a vested interest in keeping rates as low as possible.

Ultimately, at all levels of government and with all means of taxation, it's the voters and taxpayers who are the only force restricting how much taxes are extracted from their pockets. The Government bureaucracy will grow to consume all the taxes that the population will bear. When taxes get too high, the population revolts and politicians either lower taxes or get replaced.

18 posted on 01/08/2008 1:45:10 PM PST by esarlls3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ontap
What’s to keep them from just upping the rate like the states do?

WE ARE! When a state talks about upping the sales tax, it is usually pretty big news and is hotly contested. The reality is, citizens can see it. It is right in front of them. They know immediately how it affects them. They can understand and fight against it.

Under the system today, hardly anyone has any idea what they actually pay out in taxes because it is muddled in withholdings, exemptions, returns, etc. At the end of the year, we fools just want to know how much we short paid the government or how much we overpaid them.

When tax legislation is debated at the federal level, it is mired in lengthy bills that add some here, take away some here, make exemptions for this or that until someone sells it as a tax code revision instead of a hike. We don't understand it and neither do half the people voting for it. But nobody knows any better to argue for it or against it because we don't know how it affects us until it is implemented. By then it is to late.

Fair Tax? They say, we need more of your money so we are raising taxes by 1/2%. We say "Hell no!" There should be no new laws added to modify a Fair Tax Code that involve extra taxes or exemptions.

It might actually make a different with citizens when they go to buy something and realize that 37% of everything they make is taken by the State and Federal Government (More if you get income tax taken out in the state you live in).

People do not realize that our state and federal governments combined are fleecing us already at a rate of about 40%. ALMOST HALF OF OUR EARNINGS GO TO GOVERNMENTS!

The Fair Tax would at a minimum put the number out there and expose what we are paying for all these social niceties.

19 posted on 01/08/2008 1:53:30 PM PST by Tenacious 1 (Racism? There are more than a million people in the world that want me dead because I am American!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Tenacious 1
No guarantee that the same exact thing couldn't/wouldn't happen to the FT. None whatsoever.
20 posted on 01/08/2008 2:00:28 PM PST by xcamel (FDT/2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson