FairTax cut for 2-parent families

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | January 19, 2008 | Howard and Raymond Richman

[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.

[Paladin2]

No, I’m not in favor of higher taxes and prices for me. Any taxation system will favor something/someone over others. Changing to a new systemwill be better or some and worse for others. If it were better for everyone, it’d be done already.

[crz]

A person refered to under the label freemen are those who are indentured yet have some freedom to do as they want...basically.

A Freeman is one who has served out his servitude and is free to do as he wants...within the law of course.

So go back to my point. We are in effect freemen..indentured to serve those in this country who commit us to servitude for their pleasure.

[Mojave]

Don’t be so cowardly. What clause of the Constitution authorizes a universal federally funded monthly debit card stipend?

[crickets]

[Man50D]

I therefore respectfully disagree and suggest a FlatTax for your consideration.

The flat tax on income does not abolish the IRS as will The Fair Tax. The Fair Tax is a flat tax on Consumption. The income tax code began as a flat tax when enacted in 1913. It taxed 1% of the first $20,000 and 7% above $500,000. It was essentially a flat tax because so few people earned more than $500,000. Less than 5% of the population was taxed in 1913. Today more than 80% of the population pays an income tax. The situation is getting worse with the AMT debacle. Imposing another flat tax on income will only evolve back into the oppressive and incredibly complex tax code we have today. It will return much quicker due to lobbyists.

[lewislynn]

Please feel free to add your own. ;-)

OK. How about these talking points?:

We need to make everyone painfully aware of the cost of government by:

Increased take home pay.
More "spendable income"
Prices about the same as now including the tax.
More money for tax free savings.
Easier to purchase a house.
Lower interest rates.
A government check in the mail or automatic deposit every month.

Painful stuff alright.

[groanup]

I can’t figure out why so many people are so absolutely terrified by this idea. It’s really pretty simple.

You are absolutely correct. There is no sense in advocating continuing imposition of the income tax when there is such a sensible and simple alternative.

Remember, as moronic and sardonic as most of these anti's sound, they really are only trying to protect their jobs. Yes I know they prosper off of the suffering of others.

Other than the standard bloodsuckers such as IRS employees there are many who believe their livelihoods are beholden to products that are treated favorably under the income tax.

If you work at a company you probably have a 401(k) plan. Such a plan would have no need to exist if it weren't for the INCOME tax laws. Someone made a big comission when he sold the plan to your HR Dept. He also makes monthly comissions off of your contributions. (And you thought they were all going toward growth.)

Also, someone gets paid by members of the plan (you) to do all the work of satisfying IRS requirements of the plan.

Don't forget that life insurance guy that sold you a policy a while back. He probably emphasized the INCOME tax deferral feature of the policy.

Same with the guy who sold you your IRA.

Same with the guy who sold your grandmother that INCOME tax deferred annuity.

Same with the guy who sold your uncle that real estate tax sheltered partnership.

Now I don't begrudge these people their livings. I do begrudge the ones that are on here spreading lies while calling others scammers.

[Paladin2]

" The 30% tax exclusive rate of The Fair Tax, that is the same dollar amount collected as the 23% tax inclusive rate of the income tax, will be reduced due to the prebate not to mention the increase in purchasing power for people as they will receive more in their paychecks after federal income taxes are abolished."

This is revenue neutral?

Let's do the fuzzy math. Feds get the same amount of money. Businesses pay nothing under FT. Individuals will also be paying less. Magic beans will be available to all including the gov't to make up the difference? (don't try the $34/head compliance savings ilo the magic beans).

[Smokin' Joe]

We are in effect freemen..indentured to serve those in this country who commit us to servitude for their pleasure.

Enjoy your chains. I am not indentured to anyone.

[napscoordinator]

I would be a lot happier if I could choose where my tax money would be spent. I know of a lot of government spending that would never see a red cent from me.

I love that idea but the problem is 60 percent would pick military spending and the other 30 percent would pick highways and infrastructure and they would only end up with 10 percent for everything else. It could be a major problem.

[Mojave]

[Turret Gunner A20]

Put the government back in its Constitutional bounds, get off the bloody teat and save a bundle, however it is collected.

Of course, that means that the private sector would have to do a lot they have sloughed onto the government, but that would be done cheaper and more efficiently than the government would anyway.

GREAT IDEA!!!!!

How?

[groanup]

What clause of the Constitution authorizes a universal federally funded monthly debit card stipend?

The same one that establishes the EPA, Department of Education, Department of Energy and HUD.

Which clause authorizes payroll taxes?

[Paladin2]

"A government check in the mail or automatic deposit every month."

Cool, but what do I have to do to get my check if I'm homeless during the ski season. Can they have it sent by courrier? I'm going to NEED that money to offset my food and gas taxes. There aren't many homeless shelters in ski towns. They just want to give you a bus ticket out of town.

[Smokin' Joe]

We are either going to have to elect people who will show restraint and curb federal spending and programs, ( series of likely one-term congressmen) or we are not. The media will not help.

[Turret Gunner A20]

Under FT, they pay nothing. Hence all those who live at home in the basement are strongly attracted to the FT (along with drug dealers and others who don't want to report their income). They're going to stop eating and buying other things after they have spent up to the lofficial poverty level? Suuuuure they will.

[Mojave]

The same one that establishes the EPA, Department of Education, Department of Energy and HUD.

Don’t be so craven. What clause of the Constitution authorizes a universal federally funded monthly debit card stipend?

[Knock It Out]

The old false but accurate argument.

NOT very accurate. The "it's really a 30% tax" argument is just a way for those with a vested interest in the current system to scare those who are too lazy to do their own research. To see how it's not actually a 30% tax...

If we're going to play that game of not comparing things from the same point of reference, it can go both ways. Essentially, if you're paying 23% out of your paycheck now, you are then (in essence) paying 30% in taxes on EVERYTHING you then go forward and spend that paycheck on.

So you pay 23/30% either way. It's the same amount of money regardless of how you label it. The difference is that you have the control over what you do with, and how much you pay from, each paycheck under the FairTax.

[Turret Gunner A20]

"By the way,,,do you make a living directly or indirectly from the current income tax system?”"

I don’t understand the question.

Hmmm. No wonder you don't understand the Fair Tax -- or much of anything else, I'll wager.

[Mojave]

Essentially, if you're paying 23% out of your paycheck now

If you're paying 0% out of your retirement savings, you'll get a 30% (to start) screwing to support the monthly stipend.

[Turret Gunner A20]

Another stupid statement. Keep going with your attempted sarcasm — eventually you MIGHT sy someth8ing funny.