Posted on 01/20/2008 6:29:07 AM PST by Man50D
During an election season, one of the first losers is the truth. The current misinformation campaign against the FairTax has been particularly virulent. Last month the FairTax was being panned by some columnists as a "crackpot scheme," even though it could be collected exactly the same way as its close cousin, the value-added tax, which is the most successful tax in the world. This month the FairTax is being vilified by various columnists as a tax increase for the middle class, even though it would provide a substantial tax cut for two-parent middle class families. Specifically, in a recent column, George Will asked, "Do you want a president (Mike Huckabee, proponent of a national sales tax of at least 30 percent) pledged to radically increase the proportion of federal taxes paid by the middle class?" Similarly, Time magazine's business and economics columnist Justin Fox wrote a blog piece entitled, "The FairTax and its big break for the $200,000-plus crowd."
The FairTax is a national sales tax that would replace the income taxes, the payroll taxes, and the gift and inheritance taxes. It would be a 30 percent sales tax on retail purchases. Since 30 cents is 23 percent of $1.30 (the amount you would pay on a $1 item), a 30 percent FairTax would cost you about 23 percent of your consumption. To help you pay the tax, you would get a prebate check or a debit card credit at the beginning of each month equivalent to the amount you would pay when buying necessities. In 2007, that amount would have been based upon $10,210 spending per adult and $3,480 spending per child.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Hey, that’s my plan. I’d didn’t know there was anyone else here on close to the same wavelength.
Or, if you are too cheap to buy the book, and too lazy or dumb, to read it, you could (but I'llo bet you won't( go to these sites -- it won't cost you a dime:
http://denisbider.blogspot.com/2008/01/taxation-in-pictures-why-fairtax-makes.html
http://denisbider.blogspot.com/2008/01/taxation-in-pictures-why-fairtax-makes.html
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer
http://www.fairtax.org/site/News2?news_iv_ctrl=1541&page=NewsArticle&id=8248
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_ask_question
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.25:
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:gogrXXoQcwEJ:www.pafairtax.org/resrcs/FlatTaxFairTaxComparison.pdf+fair+tax+fica+tax&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/Open_Letter.pdf
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59747
It's based on PEOPLE, not HOUSEHOLD'S nor HOUSEHOLD INCOME.SEC. 301. FAMILY CONSUMPTION ALLOWANCE..
Perhaps no one told you that if you don’t have to expend money preparing taxes, there will be higher profit for the owners or prices can drop or employees can earn more. Did you ever consider those possibilities?Unlike you, I consider all possibilities but I missed the part that said anyone HAD to expend money under the income tax but no one HAD to under the Fairtax.
A) You ARE defending the status quo;
B) Why should citizens be required to report income in a format that denies protection against self incrimination, i.e. denies citizens their 5th Amendment rights?
The government has no business knowing what we do or how much we make. None.
Not only are you defending the status quo, you are advocating systemic deprivation of privacy and systemic deprivation of Constitutional protections.
Folks here have been claiming that the FT lets them decide how much tax to pay. I'm just pointing out that that is not that much advantage because they already have the means to reduce taxes if that is thier overriding concern.
Arguing that the FT allows folks to voluntarily cut their tax contributions, but then also claiming that the FT will be revenue neutral is not internally consistent. What would the gov't response be to a drop in FT revenue? (raise the rate is the only correct answer)
Schools are not funded by income tax so that is really a straw man argument.
Advocating wholesale dismantling of K-University is too ridiculous to defend, so I don’t think you really want to go there, do you?
I’d argue that making a transition to a new taxation system while making the taxation revenue neutral is exactly maintaining and defending the status quo. That is what annoys me the most about the FT, the gov’t won’t be changing.
I believe the argument is that one has to go to work, but one doesn’t have to spend.
Congressional spending is another topic requiring another solution.
Maybe one thing at a time?
Some congressman at one time proposed that Congress be required to cite Constitutional authority for any bill that they proposed.
I like the idea. Congress didn’t.
For whatever tweaks the FT might need, it can drastically reduce or eliminate the IRS. That is a notable accomplishment in itself. Next would be dismantling the BATF and folding any legitimate duties into existing agencies. But again, another topic and another solution needed.
The IT is largely a voluntary system, in that the PoPo don’t come out to your house and make you fill it out. You don’t have to fill out the forms. Lots of people don’t, even some who should.
Well, I don’t know about you.....but I don’t fill out tax forms for the heck of it or out of the goodness of my heart. I expect to be PAID for the time I spend helping people comply with this stupidity.
Pfft.
It already is lacking in an adequate transition plan though.
Note that taxation systems work better when they are stable so people can do some long term planning. The uncertainty caused even by discussion of the FT will cause some negative economic outcomes too. Who is measuring/estimating that?
Cite the items lacking in the transition plan.
Grinch.
I do fill out forms for free. I do for the children (mine).
We all agree the government has overstepped its bounds. We KNOW that, okay? We are discussing a different method of taxation that, I feel, would make those who currently aren't paying their share feel a little bit of our pain.
This entire forum is all about the evils of big government. We got that part.
Sure. Where's the paretoed list?
Reducing gov't size (or say, controlling the borders) is way up the list compared to replacing the IRS with an expanded Social Security Administration and a new (NEW agency name here) agency to collect the sales tax and do audits and stuff like that.
I hope you don't even pretend to present the case that long term planning will be more difficult under the FairTax. How hard is it to plan on what to buy next week?
How hard is it for grandparents to do estate planning when, in the year 2010 their children will owe no estate tax but the year after they will owe 55% of the estate? How absurd is that in the arena of long term planning?
Neal Boortz (the author of the FairTax Book) once authored a document for the Georgia State Legislature that stated "by signing this document for this legislation this legislator feels that he and his fellow legislators know better how to spend taxpayers' money than do the taxpayers".
Needless to say it wasn't adopted by the legislature.
Well, I don’t know about you.....but I don’t fill out tax forms for the heck of it or out of the goodness of my heart. I expect to be PAID for the time I spend helping people comply with this stupidity.LOL! You think you'd be paid while at the same time you're also paying.
How would you be exempt from paying under the Fairtax?...Oh wait, I know, you'll only buy used stuff.
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.