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 ...
As has been pointed out by many time after time - you don’t pay an additional 30% tax on your savings (or anything else for that matter). That’s just trash talk.
How’s it worked out for Nauru?
FT IS tax code. There are attributes of the FT that are maltreatment of citizens. Others will likely appear after it is enacted (say, annual increases in the ST rate).
Water's rising.
By that description I think the author meant it was the most widely used tax - which may or may not be the case but it is very widely used in other countries.
Retirees will be exempt from the FT? There must be a new talking points fax.
Hello?
Such as?
Don't display such assertions if you aren't prepared to back them up.
BS. Check with baybabe. Look at FT.org charts.
Double taxation of AT savings made before FT.
And I believe that they are correct.
You do indeed make me hyaterical -- ROTFHLMAOAYCT. [[Rolling On The Floor Hysterically Laughing My Ass Off At Your Childish Twaddle]]
When you add the costs of taxes embedded in prices to the payroll taxes is paying a reasonable amount in tax.
Under the FairTax his effective tax rate would no doubt be even lower depending upon his consumption choices.
No conflict there. The VAT may be the most widely used tax form but the loopholes possibilities are indeed rampant. Most countries using the VAT now recognize this and purposely try to crack down on some of these excesses.
That’s rather rude don’t you think? And by the way I think 23% is an abomination also. I don’t restrict my thinking nor my like or dislike of taxes to strictly Federal. One needs to consider the big picture and the big picture is significantly more than 23% or 30% and that’s a big Ugh to me!
You statement that the FairTax would “almost always” be lower is a red flag. I’ve found throughout life that those usually or almost always statements seem to usually or almost always miss me by just a few dollars, and I end up paying more. If you would promote your position and convince people a more lucid and descriptive approach might gather more support. Accusing me of falling for a pretence didn’t help me understand the benefits I would derive from a fair tax, and that should be what you do if you want support for your position. I hope you have a pleasant evening.
There's no "stipend" involved at all with the FairTax - merely the prebate which is a tax refund. Even then it's not available to "everyone" - nor should it be.
How the hell do you expect a FEDERAL law to affect your state and local sales taxes? What do you want, the Federal Government to do away with state and local government? If you do, vote for Swillery Clinton.
The bill already defines the concept as it states. There’s not other option for the “government” to define it any more clearly.
But they'll pale next to the evasion a 30% federal sales tax would bring.
It depends on how the tax is calculated - it can be done either way. There are some businesses where it is customary to quote prices on a tax inclusive basis presently.
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.